LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 


GIFT    OF 


;^(\jhj^.., &\Mli!^^ 

Class 


THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 


BOOKS   BY  PROFESSOR   JAMES   ORR 
PUBLISHED  BY  CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


The  Problem  op  the  Old  Testament. 
12mo net,  $1.50 

David  Hume  and  his  Influence  on  Phi- 
losophy and  Theology.  {The  World's 
Epoch-Makers.}     12mo $1.25 

The  Christian  View  op  God  and  the 
World  as  Centering  in  the  Incar- 
nation. Being  the  Kerr  Lectures,  1890- 
1891.    New  Edition.    12mo     .     .    .  $2.75 


THE 
VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 


BEING  LECTURES  DELIVERED  UNDER  THE  AUSPICES  OF 

THE  BIBLE  TEACHERS'  TRAINING  SCHOOL 

NEW  YORK,  APRIL,  1907 


BY 


JAMES  ORR,  M.A.,  D.D. 

PBOFE8SOB  OF  APOLOGETICS  AND  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY 

IN  THE  UNITED  FREE  CHUECH  COLLEGE 

GLASGOW,   SCOTLAND 


WITH   APPENDIX 
GIVING  OPINIONS  OF  LIVING  SCHOLARS 


"Thou  didst  rot  ablior  the  Virgo's  womb.' 


CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S   SONS 
NEW  YORK 1907 


Copyright,  1907,  by 
Charles  Scribner's  Sons 

Published,  September,  1907 


TROW   DIRECTORY 

PRINTING   ANO   BOOKBINDING  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK 


PREFACE 


These  lectures  were  delivered  during  the  month  of 
April,  1907,  in  the  Chapel  of  the  Fifth  Avenue  Presby- 
terian Church,  New  York,  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Bible  Teachers'  Training  School  of  that  city,  and  they 
are  now  published,  practically  as  prepared  for  delivery, 
under  the  same  auspices.  The  author  regrets  that  their 
revision  for  the  press  had  to  be  undertaken  at  a  distance 
from  facilities  for  checking  quotations  and  references  in 
his  pages ;  but  he  trusts  that  these,  if  not  so  copious  as 
he  could  wish,  will  be  found  generally  correct.  The 
papers  summarised  in  the  Appendix  came  into  the  au- 
thor's hands  in  New  York  after  his  own  work  was  com- 
pleted, and  he  has  made  no  use  of  them  in  the  text. 

The  aim  of  the  lectures  is  to  establish  faith  in  the 
miracle  of  the  Lord's  Incarnation  by  Birth  from  the 
Virgin,  to  meet  objections,  and  to  show  the  intimate 
connection  of  fact  and  doctrine  in  this  transcendent  mys- 
tery. The  organism  of  truth  is  one,  and  there  is  much 
need,  in  these  days  of  loose  ends  in  thinking,  to  fortify 
what  may  be  called  the  doctrinal  conscience  by  showing 
how  the  parts  of  divine  truth  cohere  together.    For  the 

v 

235420 


vi  PREFACE 

rest,  the  book  must  speak  for  itself.  The  writers  to 
whom  the  author  has  been  chiefly  indebted,  and  to  whom 
he  makes  grateful  acknowledgment,  will  be  found  men- 
tioned in  the  footnotes. 

September,  1907. 


CONTENTS 

SYNOPSIS  OF  LECTURES 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE— ISSUES  AND  PRELIMINARY 
OBJECTIONS 

PAGE 

Recent  attacks  on  article  of  Virgin  Birth — Scope  of  lec- 
tures— History  of  controversy — Grounds  on  which  Vir- 
gin Birth  assailed — Usually  connected  with  denial  of  the 
supernatural  in  Christ's  life  generally — Statement  of  the 
case  for  faith — Limits  of  the  argument:  1.  Not  primarily 
with  those  who  reject  all  miracles — Fallacy  of  this  position; 
2.  Not  primarily  with  those  who  reject  the  Incarnation — 
Main  question:  Is  the  Virgin  Birth  unessential  to  those  who 
accept  the  higher  view  of  Christ's  Person? — Denial  of  a 
connection  between  fact  and  doctrine — Presumptions  in  an 
opposite  direction — Zeal  of  opponents  suggests  such  connec- 
tion— Belief  in  the  Incarnation  usually  goes  along  with  be- 
lief in  the  Virgin  Birth — Impugners  of  the  latter  generally 
reject  the  former — Survey  of  scholarship  on  this  point — 
This  nearly  invariable  concomitance  points  to  an  inner  con- 
nection— Question  primarily  one  of  fact — If  a  fact,  then  a 
connection  to  be  presumed,  whether  seen  at  first  or  not — 
Virgin  Birth  may  not  be  foundation  of  our  faith  in  the  In- 
carnation, yet  may  be  part  of  foundation  of  the  fact  of  the 
Incarnation — Narratives  of  Infancy  needed  to  complete 
our  view  of  the  supernatural  Person — They  incorporate 
Christ  into  history 1 

vii 


Vlll  CONTENTS 


II 


THE    GOSPEL   WITNESSES— GENUINENESS    AND    INTEGRITY 
OF    THE    RECORDS 

Narratives  in  Matthew  and  Luke — The  only  accounts  of  Christ's 
birth  which  we  have  attest  His  Virgin  Birth — If  these  re- 
jected, nothing  certainly  known  of  Christ's  earthly  origin — 
The  two  narratives  independent — So-called  discrepancies  a 
proof  of  this — Difference  in  point  of  view,  yet  basal  facts  the 
same — The  two  accounts  are  complementary — From  dif- 
ferent standpoints — Genuineness  of  narratives — Indubita- 
bly genuine  parts  of  their  respective  Gospels — Testimony 
of  MSS.  unanimous — Comparison  with  Mark  xiv.  9-20,  etc. 
— Testimony  of  Versions  unanimous — Special  recensions: 
1.  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  contained  these 
narratives;  2.  The  Ebionitic  Gospel  omitted  Matt,  i.,  ii.,  but 
this  a  mutilation;  3.  Marcion's  Gospel  of  Luke  omitted 
chaps,  i.,  ii.,  etc. — All  grant  that  this  not  original — Well- 
hausen's  treatment  of  the  testimony — Insufficiency  of  in- 
ternal reasons  for  rejection — Integrity  of  text  of  narratives 
— Attempts  to  show  that  Luke  i.,  ii.,  not  a  narrative  of  Vir- 
gin Birth — Question  of  chap.  i.  34,  35 — Attestation  of  these 
verses — Value  of  records — The  Third  Gospel  the  work  of 
Luke — Relation  of  Greek  Matthew  to  the  Apostle — General 
result 30 


III 

SOURCES  OF  THE  NARRATIVES— HISTORICAL  AND  INTERN- 
AL CREDIBILITY 

Birth  narratives  have  an  historical  setting — External  and  in- 
ternal evidence — Assumption  of  honesty  of  narrators — 
Alternative  is  deliberate  fiction — The  historical  relations — 
"In  days  of  Herod" — The  enrolment  under  Quirinius — 
Difficulties  on  this  subject — Probable  solution  indicated 
by  discoveries — The  genealogies — In  form  both  genealo- 
gies of  Joseph — Their  divergencies — Probable  explanation 


CONTENTS  ix 

PAGE 

— Mary's  genealogy  involved — Massacre  of  the  infants — 
Internal  credibility  of  narratives — Narratives  in  both  Gos- 
pels go  together  as  wholes — Aramaic  basis  of  Luke's  nar- 
rative— Primitive  and  Hebraic  in  cast — Dr.  Briggs  on 
poetic  form — Both  narratives  from  early  Jewish  circles — 
Idea  of  Virgin  Birth  foreign  to  Jewish  mind — If  true,  only 
two  sources  possible :  Joseph  and  Mary — Character  of  narra- 
tives agree  with  this — Matthew's  narrative  concerned  with 
Joseph — Luke's  concerned  with  Mary — Responsibility  on 
these  of  providing  such  narratives — Objection  from  mirac- 
ulous character  not  valid — Angelic  appearances — Objec- 
tions from  Mary's  later  conduct — Contrast  with  Apocryphal 
Gospels — Marks  of  simple,  severe  truthfulness      ...     64 


IV 

THE  BIRTH  NARRATIVES  AND  THE  REMAINING  LITERA- 
TURE OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT— ALLEGED  SILENCE 
OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 

Alleged  isolation  of  birth  narratives — Silence  of  Mark,  John, 
Paul,  etc. — Alleged  contradictory  facts — "son  of  Joseph," 
etc. — Preliminary  question:  Assuming  narratives  true,  what 
have  we  a  right  to  expect? — Facts  at  first  known  to  few 
(Mary,  Joseph,  Elizabeth,  etc.),  yet  some  knowledge  of 
divine  wonders  at  birth  (shepherds,  etc.) — Mystery  of 
Christ's  birth  undivulged  in  Nazareth — No  part  of  Christ's 
preaching — Probably  early  known  in  Church  that  Christ's 
birth  embraced  a  divine  mystery,  but  full  facts  undisclosed 
— Reserve  of  Mary  combined  with  sense  of  responsibility 
for  providing  authentic  narrative — Possible  channels  of 
communication — Agreement  with  character  of  narratives 
in  Gospels — Unchallenged  reception  of  Gospels  proof  that 
these  believed  to  rest  on  reliable  information — Examination 
of  objections — Alleged  birth  in  Nazareth — Baseless  asser- 
tions on  this  head — Joseph  popularly  spoken  of  as  father 
of  Jesus — Luke  himself  so  speaks — This  natural  and  inevi- 
table in  the  circumstances — Genealogies  declared  to  attest 
Joseph's  paternity — Sinaitic  reading  of  Matt.  i.  16 — Gen- 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

ealogies  carefully  avoid  conveying  this  idea — "Son  of 
David"  legally  through  Joseph,  but  probably  also  naturally 
through  Mary — Evangelists  felt  no  contradiction — Limits 
of  argument  from  silence — Silence  of  Mark  proves  nothing 
— He  begins  with  public  ministry — Jesus  "  the  Son  of  God" 
— John's  Gospel  presupposes  earlier  narratives — He  supple- 
ments by  higher  view,  but  does  not  contradict — His  opposi- 
tion to  Cerinthus,  who  denied  the  Virgin  Birth — John  must 
have  assumed  a  miraculous  birth — John  i.  13 — Mary  in 
John's  Gospel — Bethlehem — Alleged  silence  of  Paul — Luke 
Paul's  companion — The  Virgin  Birth  (if  known)  not  the 
ground  of  Paul's  faith — But  his  doctrine  implies  a  supernat- 
ural birth — Peculiarity  in  his  references  to  Christ's  earthly 
origin — Probable  allusion  to  birth  narratives  in  Rev.  xii.   .     91 


RELATION   TO   OLD   TESTAMENT   PROPHECY— WITNESS   OF 
EARLY  CHURCH  HISTORY 

Proposed  derivation  of  narratives  of  Virgin  Birth  from  Old  Tes- 
tament prophecy — Strauss's  mythical  theory — Its  failure — 
View  that  story  derived  from  Is.  vii.  14  ("  Behold  a  virgin," 
etc.) — Cleft  here  in  opposing  camp — Newer  school  deny 
possibility  of  such  derivation — Jews  did  not  apply  this 
prophecy  to  Messiah — Ambiguity  of  Hebrew  term — Idea 
foreign  to  O.  T. — No  application  of  prophecy  in  Luke — Yet 
true  fulfilment  of  prophecy  in  Christ — Matthew's  use  of 
prophecy  in  chaps,  i.,  ii. — "Nazarene" — "Out  of  Egypt," 
etc. — "Rachel  weeping" — Ruler  from  Bethlehem — Isaiah's 
oracle — Historical  setting  and  meaning — The  word  (almah — 
"Immanuel" — Fulfilled  only  in  Christ — Transition  through 
prophecy  to  early  Church — From  Apostolic  times  the  Virgin 
Birth  an  integral  part  of  Church's  faith — Early  reception  of 
Gospels — Virgin  Birth  challenged  only  by  (1)  Ebionites 
(Anti-Pauline),  not  by  Nazarenes;  (2)  Certain  Gnostic 
sects  (Cerinthus,  etc.),  not  by  all — Reasons  for  denial — 
Affirmed  constantly  by  main  body  of  Church — Evidence  of 
old  Roman  creed — Witness  of  other  Churches  (Irenaeus, 
Tertullian,  etc.) — Virgin  Birth  in  Ignatius,  Aristides,  Justin 


CONTENTS  xi 

PAGE 

Martyr,  Tatian,  etc. — Gospels  in  ecclesiastical  use — Jewish 
slanders  based  on  this  belief  (Celsus,  Talmud) — Doctrinal 
value  set  by  Fathers  on  Virgin  Birth  (Irenaeus,  Tertullian, 
Origen,  etc.) — Immovable  from  Church  testimony      .       .  123 


VI 

MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  ORIGIN  OF  NARRATIVES   OF  THE 
VIRGIN  BIRTH— ALLEGED  HEATHEN  ANALOGIES 

Mythical  explanations  of  story  of  Virgin  Birth — Number  and 
conflicting  character — Two  main  classes:  1.  Alleged  origin 
of  myth  on  Jewish  soil  (Keim,  Lobstein,  Harnack,  etc.) — 
This  decisively  rejected  by  newer  writers  (Schmiedel,  Sol- 
tau,  Usener,  etc.) ;  2.  Origin  from  Gentile  sources — Impos- 
sibility of  this  shown  by  Harnack,  etc. — Recapitulation  of 
objections  to  derivation  from  Is.  vii.  14 — Examination  of 
special  theories  of  Jewish  Origin: — Supposed  stages  of  de- 
velopment— If  belief  primitive,  no  time  for  rise  of  myth — 
If  arose  concurrently  with  Paul's  doctrine,  must  have  been 
known  by  him — Less  than  thirty  years  from  founding  of 
Church — Lobstein's  theory  of  "explanatory  formula"  to 
solve  Christological  problem — Inconsistency  of  this  with 
idea  of  its  being  "poetry" — If  put  (with  others)  later  than 
Paul  and  John,  we  leave  Jewish  soil — This  breaks  on  date 
of  Gospels — Theories  of  Gentile  Origin: — Mingling  of  divine 
and  human  in  heathenism — Deification,  myths  of  sons  of 
gods,  etc. — Absence  of  historical  element  in  paganism — 
Nowhere  true  analogy  to  Virgin  Birth  of  Gospels — Lustful 
tales  of  popular  Greek  and  Roman  mythology — Attitude  of 
Plato  to  these — Of  Church  Fathers — Divine  origin  ascribed 
by  flattery  to  Alexander,  Augustus,  etc. — Not  virgin  births, 
and  deceived  nobody — Buddhism  out  of  the  question — No 
God,  Holy  Spirit,  or  true  virgin  birth  in  Buddhism — 
Egyptian  parallels  baseless  and  not  known — Soltau's 
theory  of  second  century  origin — Its  artificial  and  impossi- 
ble character — New  theory  of  Gunkel,  Cheyne,  etc.,  of 
Babylonian  origin — Admission  of  untenableness  of  previous 
views — A   supposed  "Pre-Christian   Jewish  Sketch,"   in- 


xii  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

eluding  virgin  birth  of  Messiah — No  proof  of  this — Cheyne 
on  "virgin  goddesses" — Absolute  contrast  to  Gospel  idea — 
Gospel  ideas  of  Virgin  Birth  and  Incarnation  are  unique     .   151 

VII 

DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH— PERSON  OF 
CHRIST  AS  INVOLVING  MIRACLE:  S1NLESSNESS  AND 
UNIQUENESS 

Allegation  that  no  doctrinal  interest  involved  in  denial  of  the 
Virgin  Birth — General  consideration :  we  are  poor  judges  of 
what  is  essential  or  unessential  in  so  transcendent  a  fact  as 
the  Incarnation — Reasons  already  shown  for  presuming  a 
connection — Others  flow  from  previous  argument:  1.  Evan- 
gelists plainly  believed  there  was  a  connection  with  the  su- 
pernatural Personality  whose  life  they  depict;  2.  The  early 
Fathers  found  important  doctrinal  aid  in  this  article  of 
belief;  3.  Opponents  themselves  (as  before  shown)  trace  the 
origin  of  the  so-called  myth  to  a  doctrinal  interest — Grounds 
of  denial  of  such  connection:  1.  No  a  priori  reason  why  Incar- 
nation should  not  take  place  under  conditions  of  ordinary 
marriage ;  2.  Virgin  Birth  alone  does  not  secure  sinlessness — 
Hereditary  taint  will  be  conveyed  by  one  parent  as  effect- 
ually as  by  two — The  opposite,  however,  is  certainly  true, 
that  perfect  sinlessness,  still  more  Incarnation,  imply 
miracle  in  the  constitution  of  the  Person ;  3.  Apostles  did 
not  include  Virgin  Birth  in  their  teaching — Positive  state- 
ment— Subject  viewed  under  three  aspects:  I.  Christ's  Sin- 
lessness— New  Testament  postulates  Christ's  sinlessness — 
This  borne  out  by  his  image — Miracle  implied  in  a  sinless 
Personality — Involved  in  Scriptural  teaching  of  radically 
sinful  condition  of  humanity  (Paul,  John) — Such  miracle  not 
simply  spiritual — Physical  and  spiritual  closely  correlated — ■ 
A  perfect  soul  implies  a  perfect  organism  to  correspond; 
II.  Jesus  a  New  Creative  Beginning  in  humanity — The 
Second  Adam — Dignity  of  Christ  in  Synoptic  narratives — 
This  again  compels  the  assumption  of  miracle  in  Christ's 
origin — Theory  of  a  purely  spiritual  miracle  (Schleier- 
macher,  Keim,  etc.)  has  never  been  able  to  maintain  itself  182 


CONTENTS  xiii 


VIII 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH:  THE  INCAR- 
NATION—SUMMARY AND  CONCLUSION 


Height  of  argument  only  reached  when  Jesus  is  regarded 

III.  The  Incarnate  Son — Pre-existence  and  Incarnation  not 
incompatible,  as  alleged,  with  Virgin  Birth — Full  mystery 
of  Christ's  Person  not  unlocked  at  beginning — All  there, 
indeed,  as  Gospel  intimations  show,  in  germ— But  Christ 
had  to  be  manifested  before  Incarnation  could  be  fully  ap- 
prehended— On  other  hand,  the  Apostolic  doctrine  does  not 
exclude,  but  requires,  a  miraculous  birth — The  pre-existent 
Son  truly  entered  humanity — Even  if  Apostles  did  not  re- 
flect on  this  question,  the  problem  was  there  to  be  solved — 
But  every  reason  to  believe  that  they  did  reflect  on  it — 
Incarnation  to  Paul  a  deep  "mystery  of  godliness" — John 
knew  narratives  of  Gospels,  and  doubtless  accepted  them 
as  solution  of  his  problem  of  how  "the  Word  became  flesh" 
— View  of  Paul  and  John  not  a  "metaphysical"  explana- 
tion— John  rose  to  his  view  of  Christ  from  his  personal 
knowledge  of  Christ — What  he  had  seen,  heard,  handled, 
of  the  Word  of  life — Their  view  of  Christ  held  by  the 
Church  generally — And  it  involved  stupendous  miracle — 
Was  this  miracle  necessarily  a  Virgin  Birth? — This  God  in 
His  wisdom  alone  could  determine — Considerations  which 
show  in  part  the  congruity  of  this  form  of  miracle — 
Already  shown  that  a  physical  miracle  involved — It  went 
down  to  depths  of  Mary's  life  in  her  motherhood — "Par- 
thenogenesis" affords  interesting  analogies,  but  does  not 
dispense  with  the  miracle — With  such  a  miracle  human  pa- 
ternity becomes  superfluous — The  Virgin  Birth  signalises 
the  unique  character  of  the  fact  as  another  form  of  birth 
could  not — A  double  miracle  involved  on  other  hypothesis 
in  counteracting  two  heredities — Summary  of  whole  argu- 
ment and  conclusion 208 


xiv  CONTENTS 

APPENDIX 

PAGE 

Introductory  Note  by  Prof.  Orr    ......  233 

Authors  of  Papers: 236 

The  Rev.  Prof.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Oxford  .  .  239 
Sir  William  M.  Ramsay,  D.C.L.,  D.D.,  Aberdeen,  Scotland  .  243 
The  Rev.  George  Box,  M.A.,  Vicar  of  Linton,  Herefordshire, 

England 248 

The  Rev.  Prof.  W.  E.  Addis,  M.A.,  Oxford 253 

The  Rev.  Canon  R.  J.  Knowling,  D.D.,  Durham,  England  .  258 
The  Rev.  Principal  A.  E.  Garvie,  D.D.,  New  College,  London  .  260 
The  Rev.  H.  Wheeler  Robinson,  M.A.,  Rawdon,  by  Leeds, 

England 267 

The  Rev.  Prof.  Theod.  Zahn,  D.D.,  Erlangen,  Germany  .  .  269 
The  Rev.  Prof.  R.  Seeberg,  D.D.,  Berlin,  Germany  .  .  .273 
The  Rev.  Prof.  H.  Bavinck,  D.D.,  Amsterdam,  Holland  .  .  275 
The  Rev.  Prof.  E.  Doumergue,  D.D.,  Montauban,  France  .  279 
The  Rev.  H.  C.  G.  Moule,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Durham  .  .  .282 
The  Rev.  W.  H.  Griffith-Thomas,  D.D.,  Oxford  ....  284 
The  Rev.  Prof.  Henry  Cowan,  D.D.,  Aberdeen,  Scotland  .       .  286 

Mr.  Joseph  Jacobs,  Litt.D.,  Yonkers,  N.  Y 288 

Prof.  Ismar  J.  Peritz,  Ph.D.,  Syracuse,  N.  Y 291 

Pasteur  Hirsch,  Paris 292 

The  Rev.  Prof.  Gabriel  Oussani,  D.D.,  Dunwoodie,  N.  Y.         .  293 

INDEX 297 


THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 


THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF   CHRIST 
LECTURE   I 

STATEMENT  OF  THE   CASE ISSUES  AND  PRELIMINARY 

OBJECTIONS 

Let  me  first  of  all  say — I  hardly  need  to  say  it — 
that  I  am  not  here  to  attack  any  individual,  to  inter- 
fere with  any  church  or  its  discipline,  to  presume  to 
judge  of  the  Christian  standing  of  any  man,  whether 
he  agrees  with  me  or  not,  even  on  the  very  vital  point 
which  brings  us  together.  I  am  here  to  discuss  with 
you  calmly  and  temperately  an  important  part  of  divine 
truth  which  has  been  of  late  years  most  vehemently, 
and,  in  my  judgment,  most  unjustly  assailed.  The 
question  which  is  to  occupy  us  is  a  very  grave  one.  It 
is  not  a  question  simply  of  liberty  to  the  individual 
conscience,  of  tenderness  and  forbearance  towards  Chris- 
tian brethren  whose  minds  may  be  in  doubt  and  per- 
plexity on  this  subject:  that  is  a  totally  different  mat- 
ter. It  is  a  question,  actually,  of  the  right  of  the 
Church  to  retain  in  its  public  creed  this  fundamental 
article  of  the  oldest  of  all  creeds — an  article  based  on 
express  declarations  of  two  of  our  Gospels,  and  found 

1 


2  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

in  the  creeds  of  every  important  branch  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  in  the  world  at  the  present  hour — the 
article,  namely,  that  Jesus  Christ,  our  Saviour,  was 
"  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary."  The  right  to  retain  this  article,  you  must  be 
aware,  is,  in  the  name  of  modern  thought  and  criticism, 
boldly,  even  peremptorily,  denied  us.  With  whatever 
graceful  acknowledgment  of  the  poetry  that  may  lie 
in  the  heart  of  the  old  Christmas  story,  the  time  has 
come,  we  are  told,  when  that  story  must  be  parted  with, 
and  the  belief  it  enshrines  once  and  for  ever  left  behind 
as  serious  affirmation. 

We  are  growing  accustomed  to  stronger  language 
even  than  denial.  I  take  two  examples.  The  first  is 
from  a  recent,  often-quoted  writer,  Soltau,  in  his  book 
on  The  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ.  "  Whoever  makes  the 
further  demand,"  he  says,  "  that  an  evangelical  Chris- 
tian shall  believe  in  the  words  i  conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary/  wittingly  constitutes 
himself  a  sharer  in  a  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the 
true  Gospel  as  transmitted  to  us  by  the  Apostles  and 
their  school  in  the  Apostolic  Age."  *  It  is  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  ask  belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth! 

The  other  example  is  from  Mr.  R.  J.  Campbell's 
newly  published  book  on  The  New  Theology.     "  The 

1  Die  Geburtsgeschichte  Jesu  Christi,  p.  32  (E.  T.,  p.  65).  The 
passage  is  put  in  bold  type.  Soltau's  own  theory  is  discussed  in 
Lect.  VI,  pp.  173-5. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  3 

credibility  and  significance  of  Christianity,"  Mr.  Camp- 
bell says,  "  are  in  no  way  affected  by  the  doctrine  of  the 
Virgin  Birth,  otherwise  than  that  the  belief  tends  to 
put  a  barrier  between  Jesus  and  the  race,  and  to  make 
Him  something  that  cannot  properly  be  called  human. 
.  .  .  Like  many  others,  I  used  to  take  the  position  that 
acceptance  or  non-acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  was  immaterial  because  Christianity  was 
quite  independent  of  it;  but  later  reflection  has  con- 
vinced me  that  in  point  of  fact  it  operates  as  a  hin- 
drance to  spiritual  religion  and  a  real  living  faith  in 
Jesus.  The  simple  and  natural  conclusion  is  that  Jesus 
was  the  child  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  had  an  unevent- 
ful childhood." *  Truly  the  Evangelists  who  intro- 
duced this  story  into  their  Gospels  have  much  to  answer 
for! 

There  is  abundant  need  and  call,  therefore,  for  dis- 
cussion of  this  question.  I  bear  in  mind  that  I  am  here 
to  deal  with  the  subject,  not  in  scholastic  fashion,  but 
on  the  lines  of  a  broad,  popular  presentation.  I  am 
not  to  enter  into  minute  discussions  of  philological, 
exegetical,  historical,  or  even  theological  points,  such 
as  might  be  appropriate  to  the  class-room;  but  am  to 
try  to  lift  the  question  out  of  the  cloud  of  learned  sub- 
tleties in  which  it  is  becoming  continually  the  more  en- 
veloped, into  a  strong,  clear  light,  where  all  may  be  able 
to  see  the  real  character  of  the  problem,  and  the  true 
i  The  New  Theology,  p.  104. 


4  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

nature  of  the  issues  that  are  involved  in  it.  I  shall 
probably  be  able  to  say  little  that  is  really  new;  noth- 
ing, I  am  afraid,  that  has  not  already  been  better  said 
by  others.  But  I  hope,  at  least,  by  a  reasoned  presenta- 
tion of  the  case  along  my  own  lines,  to  do  something 
to  remove  misconceptions,  to  "  stablish,  strengthen, 
settle "  faith,1  where  that  has  been  unduly  shaken, 
and  to  produce  a  stronger  impression  in  some  minds 
than  perhaps  at  present  exists  of  the  place  which  this 
much-contested  article  holds  in  the  organism  of  Chris- 
tian truth. 

1  have  said  that  the  article  of  the  Virgin  Birth  of 
the  Lord  is  being  at  the  present  time  fiercely  assailed. 
I  do  not  know  that,  since  the  days  of  the  conflicts  with 
Jews  and  pagans  in  the  second  century,  there  has  been 
so  determined  an  attack  on  this  particular  article  of 
the  creed  as  we  are  now  witnessing.2  The  birth  of 
Jesus  from  the  Virgin  has  always,  of  course,  been  an 
offence  to  rationalism.  The  attack  on  it  had  its  place, 
though  a  comparatively  subordinate  one,  in  the  Deis- 
tical  controversies  of  the  eighteenth  century.3     Avail- 

1 1  Peter  v.  10. 

2  The  change  is  perhaps  most  clearly  seen  in  the  literature  of 
apologetics.  One  is  struck  by  observing  how,  even  in  approved 
text-books  on  the  "Evidences,"  attention  is  concentrated  on  the 
Resurrection — the  great  miracle  at  the  end  of  our  Lord's  life — but 
little  or  nothing  is  said  of  the  Virgin  Birth — the  miracle  at  the 
beginning. 

3  Cf.  Paine's  Age  of  Reason,  Reimarus,  etc. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  5 

ing  himself  of  the  Jewish  slanders,  Voltaire  treated  it 
with  a  scurrilous  indecency.1  In  this  form  the  attack 
perpetuates  itself  in  the  coarser  unbelief  of  our  own 
time — in  Haeckel,  for  example.2  The  older  rational- 
ism, in  all  its  schools,  rejected  the  miracle,  or  explained 
it  away.  Paulus,  in  his  insipid  way,  gave  a  "  natural " 
explanation  of  the  event,  supposing  Mary  to  be  the 
victim  of  a  deception  practised  upon  her  by  her  kins- 
woman Elisabeth.3  De  Wette,  who  has  been  followed 
by  many  since,  saw  in  the  stories  poetic  symbols  of 
religious  ideas.  The  attack  of  Strauss  on  the  narra- 
tives left  little  unsaid  that  could  be  said,  and  prepared 
the  way  for  all  subsequent  developments.  A  more 
recent  turning-point  was  Kenan's  Life  of  Jesus,  which 
opens  in  the  bold  style  of  assertion  with  which  we  are 
now  familiar:  "Jesus  was  born  at  Nazareth,  a  small 
town  of  Galilee,  which  before  His  time  had  no  celeb- 
rity. .  .  .  His  father  Joseph  and  His  mother  Mary 
were  people  in  humble  circumstances."  4  Direct  at- 
tacks on  the  article  of  the  Virgin  Birth  developed  a 
little  later  in  the  Lutheran  Church,5  and  the  movement 
hostile  to  the  article  has  gone  on  gathering  in  volume, 
and  spreading  its  influence  into  other  countries  since. 

1  Cf .  his  Examen  Important  de  Milord  Bolingbroke,  ch.  x. 

2  Riddle  of  the  Universe,  ch.  xviii.     Cf.  in  criticism,  Loofs,  Anti- 
Haeckel,  and  see  below,  pp.  95,  146. 

3  Cf.  Strauss's  Life  of  Jesus,  I,  p.  18  (E.  T.). 
•Ch.  ii. 

6  Cf.  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I,  p.  20. 


6  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

A  marked  impulse  was  given  to  it  in  1892  by  the  depo- 
sition of  a  talented  young  pastor,  Herr  Schrempf,  in 
Wiirtemberg,  for  refusal  to  use  the  Apostles'  Creed — - 
a  case  which  brought  the  redoubtable  Prof.  Harnack 
into  the  field,  and  gave  rise  to  an  enormous  controver- 
sial literature.  Now,  in  the  wake  of  newer  tendencies, 
has  come  the  so-called  "  historical-critical  "  school,  with 
its  open  repudiation  of  everything  supernatural  in  the 
history  of  Jesus.  The  movement  which  this  influential 
school  represents  is  deeply  penetrating  Britain  and 
America.  The  result  in  both  countries  is  seen  in  a 
wide-spread  tendency,  if  not  to  deny  this  article,  at 
least  to  represent  it  as  unessential  to  Christian  faith; 
and  the  impression  left  on  a  still  larger  number  of 
minds  is  that  the  case  for  the  Virgin  Birth  must  be 
a  very  weak  one,  when  so  many  scholarly  men  reject 
the  belief,  and  so  many  more  hold  themselves  in  an 
attitude  of  indifference  to  it.  Thus  the  question 
stands  at  the  present  moment. 

What  now  are  the  grounds  on  which  this  article  of 
our  old-world  faith  is  so  confidently  challenged?  It 
would  be  a  poor  compliment  to  pay  to  our  opponents  to 
deny  that  their  grounds  of  objection,  when  boldly  and 
skilfully  stated,  and  set  forth  with  some  infusion  of 
religious  warmth — as  they  are,  e.  g.,  by  a  writer  like 
Lobstein  ! — have  not  a  measure  of  plausibility  fitted  to 

1  In  his  book  on  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ,  translated  in  the 
Crown  Theological  Library. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  7 

produce  a  strong  impression  on  minds  that  hear  them 
for  the  first  time.  Briefly  sketched,  they  are  such  as  the 
following : — 

The  narratives  of  the  miraculous  birth,  we  are  told, 
are  found  only  in  the  introductory  chapters  of  two  of 
our  Gospels — Matthew  and  Luke — and  are  evidently 
there  of  a  secondary  character.  The  rest  of  the  New 
Testament  is  absolutely  silent  on  the  subject.  Mark, 
the  oldest  Gospel,  and  John,  the  latest,  know  nothing 
of  it.  Matthew  and  Luke  themselves  contain  no  fur- 
ther reference  to  the  mysterious  fact  related  in  their 
commencement,  but  mention  circumstances  which  seem 
irreconcilable  with  it.  Their  own  narratives  are  con- 
tradictory, and,  in  their  miraculous  traits,  bear  clear 
marks  of  legendary  origin.  All  the  Gospels  speak 
freely  of  Jesus  as  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  The 
Virgin  Birth  formed  no  part  of  the  oldest  Apostolic 
tradition,  and  had  no  place  in  the  earliest  Christian 
preaching,  as  exhibited  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  The  Epis- 
tles show  a  like  ignorance  of  this  profound  mystery. 
Paul  shows  no  acquaintance  with  it,  and  uses  language 
which  seems  to  exclude  it,  as  when  he  speaks  of  Jesus 
as  "  of  the  seed  of  David."  '  Peter,  John,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  the  Book  of  Revelation,  all  ignore 
it.  If  thousands  were  brought  to  faith  in  Jesus  as  the 
divine  Redeemer  in  this  earliest  period,  it  was  without 
reference  to  this  belief.  There  is  no  proof  that  the 
1  Rom.  i.  3. 


> 


8  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

belief  was  general  in  the  Christian  Church  before  the 
second  century.1 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  alleged,  the  origin  of  this 
belief,  and  of  the  narratives  embodying  it,  can  be  read- 
ily explained.  It  grew  out  of  a  mistaken  application 
of  Old  Testament  prophecy  (Is.  vii.  14),  or  from 
contact  with,  or  imitation  of,  pagan  myths ;  and  is  itself 
an  example  of  the  myth-forming  spirit  which  ascribes 
a  superhuman  origin  to  great  men  or  religious  heroes. 
In  any  case,  it  is  no  essential  part  of  Christian  faith. 
Nowhere  in  the  New  Testament  is  anything  ever  based 
on  it,  and  neither  the  sinlessness  of  Christ  nor  the  In- 
carnation itself  can  be  shown  to  depend  on  it.  Why 
then,  it  is  urged,  burden  faith  with  such  a  mystery? 
Why  ask  men  to  believe  in  that  for  which,  in  con- 
science, they  do  not  think  there  is  sufficient  evidence? 
Why  retain  so  doubtful  an  article  as  a  binding  part 
of  the  creed  of  the  Church  ? 

With  such  reasonings  confidently  put  forward,  can 

we  wonder  that  many  are  swept  along,  overpowered, 

•Mr.  Campbell  says:  "The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  was  apparently 
unknown  to  the  primitive  church,  for  the  earliest  New  Testament 
writings  make  no  mention  of  it.  Paul's  letters  do  not  allude  to  it, 
neither  does  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  .  .  .  Nowhere  does  Paul  give  us  so 
much  as  a  hint  of  anything  supernatural  attending  the  mode  of 
His  entry  into  the  world.  Mark  does  not  even  tell  us  anything 
about  the  childhood  of  the  Master;  his  account  begins  with  the 
Baptism  of  Jesus  in  Jordan.  The  Fourth  Gospel,  although  written 
much  later,  ignores  the  belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth,  and  even  seems 
to  do  so  of  set  purpose  as  belittling  and  materialising  the  truth." 
(The  New  Theology,  pp.  97-8.) 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  9 

shaken  in  mind,  and  disposed  to  acquiesce  in  the  ques- 
tion being  left  an  open  one?  Especially  when  they  are 
told,  as  they  commonly  are,  that  all  the  really  com- 
petent scholarship  has  gone  over  to  this  side. 

I  shall  immediately  try  to  state  the  case  from  the 
other  side,  but,  before  doing  this,  there  is  one  impor- 
tant remark  which  I  feel  it  incumbent  upon  me  to 
make.  We  are  discussing  the  Virgin  Birth,  but  it  is 
necessary  at  the  outset  to  point  out  that,  in  the  present 
stage  of  the  controversy,  this  is  only  a  fragment  of  a 
much  larger  question.  It  is  a  fact  we  cannot  ignore — 
it  will  appear  more  clearly  as  I  proceed — that  the  great 
bulk  of  the  opposition  to  the  Virgin  Birth  comes  from 
those  who  do  not  recognise  a  supernatural  element  in 
Christ's  life  at  all.  I  do  not  state  this  as  a  reproach — 
the  writers  in  question  would  not  regard  it  as  a  re- 
proach, but  as  a  mark  of  their  modernity — I  call  atten- 
tion to  it  only  that  we  may  see  exactly  where  we  stand 
in  the  discussion.  It  is  not  with  these  writers,  as 
we  soon  come  to  discover,  a  question  of  the  Vir- 
gin Birth  alone,  but  a  question  of  the  whole  view 
we  are  to  take  of  Jesus  in  His  Person  and  work;  not 
a  question  of  this  single  miracle,  but  a  question  of  all 
miracles.  This  of  itself,  I  grant,  does  not  prove  the 
impugners  of  the  Virgin  Birth  to  be  wrong.  If  the 
evidence  for  the  narratives  of  the  Nativity  is  weak, 
and  the  belief  based  on  them  erroneous,  the  fact  that 
it  is  negative  critics  who  bring  the  weakness  to  light 


10  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

will  not  make  the  history  again  good  and  true.  Never- 
theless it  is  highly  important,  in  entering  on  our  in- 
quiry, to  keep  in  mind  this  general  standpoint  of  the 
opponents.  We  constantly  hear  it  said — Even  if  the 
Virgin  Birth  is  given  up,  there  is  enough  left  in  the 
Gospels  to  furnish  a  secure  basis  for  faith  and  hope. 
My  point  is,  that,  with  these  writers,  the  rest  of  the 
record  does  not  stand — is  not  allowed  to  stand.  They 
work  from  a  basis,  and  by  a  method,  which  will  not 
allow  it  to  stand.  If  the  Virgin  Birth  is  attacked  so 
pertinaciously,  it  is  because  it  seems  to  them  the  weak- 
est of  the  Gospel  facts  in  point  of  evidence,  and  be- 
cause they  feel  instinctively  that  its  overthrow  would 
mean  so  much.  It  would  be  like  the  dislodging  of  a 
great  stone  near  the  foundation  of  a  building,  that  would 
bring  down  much  more  with  it. 

But  is  the  case  for  the  Virgin  Birth  really  a  weak 
one?  Let  me  now,  having  stated  the  position  as  fairly 
as  I  can  for  the  opponents,  put  before  you  an  opposite 
supposition.  I  state  it  at  present  only  hypothetically : 
the  proof  will  come  later. 

Suppose,  then,  it  can  be  shown  that  the  evidence  is 
not  what  is  alleged  in  the  statement  above  given,  but 
that  in  many  respects  the  truth  is  nearly  the  reverse : — 
suppose  it  shown  that  the  narratives  in  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  unquestionably  genuine  parts  of  their  re- 
spective Gospels;  that  the  narratives  have  come  down 
to  us  in  their  integrity;  that  the  sources  of  their  in- 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  11 

formation  were  early  and  good;  that  they  do  not  con- 
tradict, but,  on  the  contrary,  corroborate  and  supple- 
ment each  other,  and  have  every  right  to  be  regarded 
as  trustworthy  narrations: — suppose  it  shown  that  the 
alleged  silence  of  Mark  and  John  can  be  readily  ex- 
plained— is  explained,  indeed,  by  the  fact  that  it  does 
not  lie  within  the  scope  of  these  Gospels  to  narrate 
the  Lord's  birth  and  infancy  at  all; '  that  the  Apostolic 
doctrine  does  not  contradict  or  exclude  a  miraculous 
birth,  but  immensely  strengthens  the  grounds  of  our 
belief  in  it;  that  so  far  as  we  can  trace  back  the  history 
of  the  early  Church,  it  was  united  in  its  testimony  to 
this  truth — only  the  narrowest  and  most  backward  of 
Jewish-Christian  sects  (the  Ebionites),  and  a  few  of 
the  Gnostic  sects  (not  all)  denying  it;  that  the  fact 
attested  is  not,  as  alleged,  of  minor  significance,  but, 
as  part  of  the  deep  "  mystery  of  godliness,"  2  stands 
in  close  and  inseparable  relation  with  the  other  truths 
about  our  Lord's  Person  (sinlessness,  Incarnation)  : — 
suppose  it  shown  that  the  attacks  of  the  critics  on  all 
these  points  fail,  and  that  the  failure  is  witnessed  to, 
not  only  by  the  verdict  of  scholars  of  more  believing 
tendency,  but  by  the  inability  of  these  writers  to  agree, 
on  almost  any  single  point,  among  themselves;  that 

ICf.  e.  g.  Mr.  Campbell's  statement  quoted  above:  "Mark  does 
not  even  tell  us  anything  about  the  childhood  of  the  Master;  his 
accounts  begin  with  the  Baptism  of  Jesus  in  Jordan"  (p.  98).  How 
then  can  it  be  contradictory  of  a  narrative  which  does  tell  us  of  the 
Infancy?  « 1  Tim.  iii.  16. 


12  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

their  rival  theories  in  explanation  of  the  narratives  are 
hopelessly  at  variance  with  each  other,  each  effectually 
knocking  the  bottom  out  of  the  arguments  of  its  neigh- 
bours:— suppose,  I  say,  these  things,  or  anything  like 
these,  to  be  established,  there  are  few,  I  think,  but 
will  admit  that  the  question  stands  in  a  very  different 
light  from  that  in  which  it  is  represented  by  opponents. 
Well,  but  this,  in  a  word,  is  what  I  am  to  try  to  show 
is  the  actual  state  of  the  case,  and  you  yourselves  are  to 
be  the  jury  to  decide  whether  I  succeed  or  not.  "  I 
speak  as  unto  wise  men;  judge  ye  what  I  say."  * 

I  have  stated  thus  briefly  the  issues  we  are  to  dis- 
cuss: there  are  now  one  or  two  things  it  is  necessary 
to  say,  in  order  to  define  more  distinctly  the  limits  of 
my  argument.    Here : — 

1.  My  argument  is  not  primarily,  or  in  the  proper 
sense  at  all,  with  those  who  rule  out  these  narratives 
simply  on  the  ground  that  a  miracle  is  implied  in  them. 
I  am  not  here,  in  other  words,  to  discuss  the  general 
question  of  the  possibility  or  probability  of  the  miracu- 
lous. I  am  quite  prepared  to  do  that  in  its  own  time 
and  place;  but  that  is  not  my  business  at  present.  If, 
therefore,  a  man  comes  forward  and  says :  "  I  do  not 
believe  in  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ  because  it  in- 
volves a  miracle,  and  miracles  do  not  happen !  3  I  have 
no  place  for  them  in  my  intellectual  scheme,"  I  do  not 

I I  Cor.  x.  15.       2  Thus  Matt.  Arnold,  Lit.  and  Dogma,  Preface. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  13 

profess  to  argue  with  that  man.  When  he  descends 
from  his  a  priori  altitude  to  discuss  the  evidence,  I 
will  hear  him,  but  not  before.  It  is  evident  that  this 
canon  already  rules  out  a  great  deal  of  objection  of 
a  sort  to  the  narratives  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  Here, 
e.  g.,  is  Prof.  Foster,  of  Chicago,  who,  in  his  book  on 
The  Finality  of  the  Christian  Religion,  goes  so  far  as 
to  declare  that  an  intelligent  man  who  now  affirms  his 
faith  in  miraculous  narratives  like  the  Biblical  as  actual 
facts — who  believes,  say,  in  the  resurrection  of  Christ — 
"  can  hardly  know  what  intellectual  honesty  means."  * 
I  say  nothing  of  "  honesty,"  but  I  do  marvel  at  the  self- 
assurance  of  any  intelligent  man  who  permits  himself 
in  these  days  to  use  such  language.  It  is  language  that 
might  be  justifiable  on  the  lips  of  a  Spinozist  to  whom 
nature  and  God  are  one,  but  which  surely  is  not  justi- 
fiable on  the  lips  of  any  one  professing  faith  in  the 
living  Father-God  of  Jesus  Christ.  For  who  is  this 
God?  The  Creator  and  Sustainer  of  the  world — imma- 
nent in  all  its  forces,  Cause  in  all  causes,  Law  in  all 
laws — yet  Himself  not  identified  with  the  world,  but 
above  it,2  ruling  all  things  in  personal  freedom  for 
the  attainment  of  wise  and  holy  ends.  How  great  the 
intellectual  confidence  of  any  man  who  undertakes  a 
priori  to  define  what  are  and  are  not  possibilities  to 
such  a  Being  in  His  relations  to  the  universe  He  has 
made!  Personally,  I  have  only  to  say  that  I  believe 
■  p.  132.  J  Eph.  iv.  6. 


14  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

that  God  can  reveal  Himself  in  extraordinary  as  well 
as  in  ordinary  ways, — that  miracle  enters  deeply  into 
the  economy  of  revelation, — that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Person  in  whom  the  long  course  of  historical  revela- 
tion culminates.  To  me,  therefore,  it  is  in  no  way 
a  priori  incredible  that  God  should  make  a  new  super- 
natural beginning  in  the  entrance  of  His  Son  into  hu- 
manity. The  world  knows  many  new  beginnings.  I 
do  not  think  you  can  explain  nature  itself  without  tak- 
ing such  into  account.  Prof.  Foster  himself,  I  observe, 
admits  that  the  consciousness  of  Jesus  is  "  empirically 
inexplicable  " — incapable  of  causal  and  psychological 
explanation — and  that  a  "  creative  "  element  derived 
immediately  from  God  must  be  discerned  in  it.1  That 
is  a  large  admission,  and  involves  much  more  than  per- 
haps Prof.  Foster  thinks.  What  bearing  it  has  on 
such  a  miracle  as  the  Virgin  Birth  will  be  considered 
after. 

2.  The  second  thing  I  have  to  say  is,  that  I  do  not 
profess  to  argue  with  those  who  rule  out  as  inadmis- 
sible the  higher  aspects  of  Christ's  Person  involved  in 
the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  I  say 
advisedly,  "  rule  out  as  inadmissible,"  for  I  do  not  wish 
to  exclude  those  who  may  be  looking  towards  this 
truth,  without  having  obtained  clearness  in  regard  to 
it;  and  I  am  ready,  again,  to  hear  any,  whatever  their 
standpoint,  when  they  descend  into  the  sphere  of  evi- 
* pp.  265-7. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  15 

dence.  All  I  mean  is  that  my  own  standpoint  is  that 
of  faith  in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation, 
and  that  I  address  myself  primarily  to  those  who  share 
with  me  in  this  belief.  I  can,  therefore,  naturally 
entertain  no  argument  which  proceeds  on  the  assump- 
tion of  a  purely  humanitarian  estimate  of  Christ, — 
which  concedes  Him  to  be  holy  man,  religious  genius, 
human  revealer  of  God,  but  acknowledges  no  super- 
natural element  in  the  constitution  of  His  Person,  or 
the  course  of  His  life.  I  admit  at  once — there  is  no 
need  of  any  further  argument  about  it — that  if  this 
is  all  we  can  say  of  Jesus, — if  there  has  been  no  such 
life,  or  works,  or  claims,  as  the  Gospels  depict, — no 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  no  exaltation  to  glory, — 
then  there  is  no  fitness  or  credibility  in  the  idea  of  a 
Virgin  Birth.  If  there  is  no  resurrection  at  the  end, 
there  is  no  suitableness  in  a  Virgin  Birth  at  the  begin- 
ning. It  would  be  folly  to  argue  for  the  supernatural 
birth  of  Christ  with  those  who  take  the  naturalistic  view ; 
for,  to  minds  that  can  reject  all  the  other  evidence  in 
the  Gospels  for  Christ's  supernatural  claims,  such  rea- 
sonings would  be  of  no  avail.  The  evidence  for  this 
particular  miracle  goes  down  in  the  general  wreck  of 
all  evidence  for  the  supernatural  in  the  Gospels.  This 
obviously,  as  I  remarked  before,  raises  a  much  larger 
question  than  the  one  immediately  before  us.  I  have 
again  only  to  say  that  I  take  here  for  granted  the  great 
facts  of  Christ's  life,  death,  and  resurrection,  as  re- 


16  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

corded  in  the  Gospels,  and  the  main  outlines  of  the 
Apostolic  teaching  on  Christ's  Person;  and  my  argu- 
ment is  directed  to  the  question :  How,  on  this  assump- 
tion, does  it  stand  with  the  evidence  for  the  Virgin 
Birth  of  Christ?  It  may  be  true  that,  if  there  is  no 
resurrection  at  the  end,  there  is  no  fitness  in  a  Virgin 
Birth  at  the  beginning.  But  my  question  is  a  different 
one.  If  there  has  been  a  resurrection  at  the  end,  what 
of  the  fitness  of  the  Virgin  Birth  thenl 

In  brief,  my  argument  will  have  special  respect  to 
those  who,  accepting  the  general  New  Testament  doc- 
trine of  Christ,  are  disposed  to  regard  this  as  inde- 
pendent of  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  or  who 
think  the  evidence  for  the  latter  insufficient.  With 
such  I  desire  to  reason. 

The  way  is  now  open  for  the  direct  discussion  of  the 
subject,  and  in  the  remainder  of  this  lecture  I  propose 
to  deal  in  a  preliminary  way  with  the  objection  that  the 
Virgin  Birth  is  not  a  vital  part  of  Christian  doctrine, 
and  therefore  may  safely  be  omitted,  or  at  least  left 
an  open  question,  in  the  Church's  public  profession. 
The  full  discussion  of  the  doctrinal  implications  of  this 
article  of  faith  necessarily  comes  later.  But  certain 
considerations  may  here  be  adduced,  which  may  suffice 
to  show,  in  starting,  that  the  connection  between  fact 
and  doctrine  is  at  least  closer  than  many  imagine. 

The  grounds  on  which  objection  to  the  Virgin  Birth 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  17 

is  based  have  already  been  indicated,  and  the  question 
is  asked:  How  can  that  which  was  not  essential  to  the 
faith  of  a  Peter,  a  Paul,  or  a  John,  be  an  essential  of 
faith  for  us?  Prof.  Harnack  is  very  angry  with  a 
Lutheran  official  pronouncement  in  which  it  is  de- 
clared :  "  That  the  Son  of  God  is  '  conceived  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary '  is  the  founda- 
tion of  Christianity,  is  the  corner-stone  on  which  all 
wisdom  of  this  world  will  shatter,"  and  replies :  "  If 
that  were  the  case,  ill  would  Mark  fare,  ill  Paul,  ill 
John,  ill  Christianity."  1  This  consideration  undoubt- 
edly weighs  with  many,  even  among  those  who  do  not 
themselves  reject  the  fact.  It  seems  to  me,  on  the  other 
hand,  that,  if  the  Virgin  Birth  be  true,  its  connection 
with  the  other  truths  about  our  Lord's  Person  cannot 
be  other  than  essential. 

One  thing  which  creates  a  strong  presumption  in 
favour  of  this  connection  is  the  fact  already  adverted 
to — the  connection  which  experience  shows  actually  to 
exist  between  belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth  and  adequate 
views  of  our  Lord's  divine  dignity.  The  article  is 
assailed  because  it  is  alleged  to  be  indifferent  doctrin- 
ally.  I  draw  a  very  different  inference.  The  very 
zeal  with  which  it  is  attacked  is  to  my  mind  a  disproof 
of  its  slight  significance.  Men  do  not  as  a  rule  fight 
strenuously  about  points  which  they  think  of  no  im- 
portance. They  concentrate  their  attack  on  points 
1  Das  apostolische  Glaubensbekenntniss,  p.  39. 


18  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

which  they  feel  to  have  strategic  value.  The  Virgin 
Birth  would  not  be  assailed  so  keenly  as  it  is,  if  it  were 
not  felt  to  mean  a  great  deal  more  than  appears  upon 
the  surface.  I  am  strongly  confirmed  in  this  convic- 
tion when  I  look  to  the  dividing-line  of  parties,  and  ob- 
serve the  almost  invariable  concomitance  of  belief  in 
the  Incarnation  with  belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth,  and  of 
denial  of  the  one  with  denial  of  the  other. 

This  is  a  point  of  so  much  importance  that  it  de- 
serves a  little  closer  attention.  From  whom,  as  a  rule, 
do  the  attacks  on  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ  come? 
I  find,  of  course,  ranked  on  the  side  of  the  assailants, 
as  already  said,  the  whole  multitude  of  those  who  re- 
ject the  supernatural  nature  and  claims  of  Christ.  But 
what  of  the  other  side?  There  are  exceptions,  I  know. 
Meyer,  the  commentator,  was  one; '  Beyschlag,  who 
occupied  a  half-way  house  theologically,  but  accepted 
the  resurrection,  was  another  —  and  others  might  be 
named.  But  that  stage  is  practically  past.  I  do  not 
think  it  will  be  doubted  by  any  one  who  has  looked 
into  the  literature  that  the  scholars  and  theologians 
who  accept  the  higher  claims  of  Christ — who  are  bona 
fide  believers  in  His  Incarnation  and  resurrection — 
are  nearly  all — you  could  count  the  exceptions  on  your 
fingers — likewise  among  the  upholders  of  the  Virgin 
Birth.    Does  this,  on  the  face  of  it,  look  as  if  there  was 

1  Meyer  accepted  the  Incarnation,  but  rejected  the  Virgin  Birth — 
an  almost  solitary  exception  of  his  class. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  19 

no  connection?  "When  in  nature  a  nearly  invariable 
concomitance  is  observed  between  two  sets  of  phenom- 
ena, the  scientific  inquirer  seldom  hesitates  to  postu- 
late some  causal  relation.  Is  the  presumption  of  a  hid- 
den bond  of  connection  not  equally  strong  here? 

I  may  illustrate  this  by  reference  to  the  remark  one 
frequently  hears  about  the  weight  of  scholarship  being 
cast  preponderatingly  on  the  side  of  the  denial  of  the 
Virgin  Birth.  The  assertion  weighs  with  many  who  are 
not  too  deeply  rooted  in  their  own  convictions,  but  it 
rests  on  an  illusion  which  it  is  desirable  at  the  outset 
to  dispel.  My  reply  to  it  is  that  the  statement  can 
only  be  accepted  if  you  begin — as  many  do — by  defin- 
ing "  scholars  "  as  those,  and  those  only,  who  take  up 
the  negative  attitude  already  described  to  the  super- 
natural claims  of  Christ.  Thus  regarded,  it  is  a  new 
proof  of  what  I  say  on  the  dividing-line  of  parties. 
Take  any  list  of  the  scholars  who  are  best  known  and 
most  frequently  quoted  as  impugners  of  the  Virgin 
Birth  of  Christ,  and  note  who  they  are.  Passing  over 
Keim  and  Beyschlag,  who  represent  an  older  strain, 
you  have  at  the  present  hour  such  writers  as  Lobstein, 
Pfleiderer,  Schmiedel,  Harnack,  Soltau,  Usener,  Gun- 
kel,  O.  Holtzmann,  Bousset,  Percy  Gardner,  F.  C. 
Conybeare,  Prof.  Foster,  of  Chicago,  Prof.  IN".  Schmidt, 
of  Cornell  University,  and  others  of  like  standpoint. 
These  writers,  as  I  said  before,  do  not  regard  it  as  any 
reproach,  but  boast  of  it  as  a  mark  of  their  intellectual 


20  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

maturity,  that  they  are  one  and  all  rejectors  of  miracle 
in  the  life  of  Christ. 

"What  now  of  scholars  on  the  other  side?  I  shall 
not  dwell  on  the  long  roll  of  the  older  theologians — 
though,  when  I  think  of  the  devout  faith  and  massive 
learning  of  these  truly  great  men  who  pass  before  me 
in  mental  review — of  men  like  Tholuck,  and  Lange,  and 
Luthardt,  and  F.  Delitzsch,  and  Eothe,  and  Dorner, 
and  Martensen,  and  Oosterzee,  and  Godet,  not  to  speak 
of  many  who  might  be  named  among  our  own  country- 
men— I  wonder,  and  ask  myself  what  rich  and  ripe 
scholarship  is,  if  they  did  not  possess  it.  But  I  take 
scholars  of  our  own  time  or  of  the  immediate  past — 
scholars  of  all  types:  New  Testament  scholars,  Old 
Testament  scholars,  Church  historians,  theologians — 
some  more  conservative,  some  more  liberal,  some 
"  higher  critics,"  some  non-higher  critics — who  accept 
this  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  and  they  are  so 
numerous  that  time  would  fail  me  to  recount  them 
fully.  Were  the  late  Bishop  Lightfoot  and  the  late 
Bishop  Westcott,  e.  g.,  not  scholars?  Are  Dr.  Sanday, 
of  Oxford,  and  Dr.  Swete,  of  Cambridge,  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  not  among  the  finest  of  our  Greek  scholars? 
Is  Principal  Fairbairn,  of  Mansfield,  Oxford,  not  a 
scholar  and  thinker?  Is  Sir  "Wm.  Kamsay,  of  Aber- 
deen, who  has  written  one  of  the  best  defences  of 
Luke's  narrative  of  the  Nativity,  not  a  scholar?  Are 
Bishop  Gore,  or  Canon  Ottley,  both  liberal  in  their 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  21 

Old  Testament  views,  or  Dr.  R.  J.  Knowling,  or  the 
writers  who  ably  defend  this  belief  in  the  recent  vol- 
ume of  Cambridge  Theological  Essays,  not  to  be  classed 
as  scholars?  Canon  Henson,  in  England,  has  been 
alarming  his  fellow-churchmen  by  his  free  views  on 
many  things;  but  Canon  Henson  holds  stoutly  by  the 
Incarnation  and  the  Virgin  Birth.1  Among  the  schol- 
ars in  the  Free  Churches  of  Britain  (I  have  already 
mentioned  Principal  Fairbairn),  probably  the  names  of 
Principal  W.  F.  Adeney,  of  Principal  A.  E.  Garvie, 
of  Prof.  Vernon  Bartlet,  of  Prof.  J.  Denney,  are  as 
representative  as  any;  but  these  are  understood  to  ac- 
cept, and  some  of  them  have  written  ably  in  defence 
of,  the  Virgin  Birth.2  You  glance  at  the  Continent, 
where  rationalism  so  strongly  prevails — though  the 
forces  are  more  evenly  divided  than  many  suppose — 
and  you  have  on  this  side  the  great  New  Testament 
scholar,  Th.  Zahn,  facile  princeps  in  his  own  field ;  you 
had  till  lately  the  learned  B.  Weiss,  of  Berlin;  you  have 
leading  theologians  like  Seeberg  and  Cremer,  above  all, 
Prof.  M.  Kahler,  of  Halle,  who  has,  I  suppose,  more 
students  in  his  classes  than  any  other  half-dozen  the- 
ological professors  put  together.     Against  these  you 

1  Cf .  his  volume,  The  Value  of  the  Bible  and  Other  Sermons,  on 
these  points. 

2  See  specially  Dr.  Adeney's  valuable  essay  on  The  Virgin  Birth 
and  the  Divinity  of  Christ  in  the  series  "Essays  for  the  Times," 
No.  xi.  Cf.  Dr.  Denney's  article  on  "The  Holy  Spirit"  in  the  Diet, 
of  Christ  and  the  Gospels,  vol.  i. 


22  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

have,  I  grant,  to  place  some  even  of  the  more  positive 
Bitschlian  theologians,  as  Kaftan,  Haring,  Loofs,  who 
shy  at  this  article;  but  in  Germany  as  elsewhere  the 
general  fact  is  that  full  belief  in  the  Incarnation  and 
belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth  go  together.  In  America, 
among  a  multitude  of  others,  mention  should  be  made 
of  the  late  Dr.  Philip  Schaff,  a  fine  historical  scholar, 
if  ever  there  was  one ;  and  now  Dr.  Briggs,  of  the  same 
Seminary,1  one  of  the  most  advanced  Old  Testament 
scholars,  has  thrown  himself  into  the  strenuous  defence 
of  this  article.  A  similar  combination  of  standpoints 
is  witnessed  in  England  in  Prof.  W.  E.  Addis,  a  radical 
Old  Testament  critic,  but  a  devout  believer  in  the  In- 
carnation, and  upholder  of  the  birth  of  our  Lord  from 
the  Virgin.  Many  other  names  might  be  cited,  but  I 
forbear.  If  scholarship  is  to  be  the  test,  we  need  not 
be  afraid  to  meet  the  adversary  in  the  gate. 

While  this  large  consensus  of  opinion  exists  as  to  the 
reality  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  it  is  right  to  notice  that 
there  are  many  who  themselves  accept  the  fact,  who 
still,  on  the  ground  that  it  does  not  enter  into  the 
"  foundation  "  of  our  Christian  faith,  are  in  favour  of 
making  this  point  of  belief  an  "  open "  one  in  the 
Christian  Church.  One  thing,  it  seems  to  me,  too  often 
forgotten  in  the  discussions  on  this  subject  is,  that  the 

1  Union  Theol.  Seminary,  New  York.  Cf.  Dr.  Briggs's  work, 
New  Light  on  the  Life  of  Jesus,  pp.  159/jf.,  and  a  striking  article  in  the 
North  American  Review  for  June,  1906. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  23 

question  we  are  dealing  with  is  not,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, one  of  theology,  but  one  of  fact.  What  raises 
the  question  at  all  is  that  we  have  two  evangelical  nar- 
ratives— the  only  two  which  relate  the  events  of  our 
Lord's  Nativity — which  circumstantially  testify  that 
this  was  the  mode  of  His  earthly  origin.  The  first 
thing  to  do,  plainly,  is  to  try  to  ascertain  whether  this 
witness  is  true.  If  it  is  not,  there  is  no  more  to  be  said. 
If  it  is,  then  we  may  sure  that  the  fact  it  attests  has 
some  bearing  on  the  constitution  of  our  Lord's  Person, 
whether  at  first  we  see  it  or  not.  It  is  here  that  the 
position  of  those  who  accept  the  fact  of  the  Virgin 
Birth,  but  deny  its  essential  connection  with  the  other 
truths  about  our  Lord's  Person  appears  to  me  illogical 
and  untenable.  The  one  thing  certain  is:  either  our 
Lord  was  born  of  a  Virgin,  or  He  was  not.  If  He  was 
not,  as  I  say,  the  question  falls:  there  is  an  end  of  it. 
But  if  He  was — and  I  deal  at  present  with  those  who 
profess  this  as  their  own  belief — if  this  was  the  way 
in  which  God  did  bring  the  Only-Begotten  into  the 
world — then  it  cannot  but  be  that  it  has  a  vital  con- 
nection with  the  Incarnation  as  it  actually  happened, 
and  we  cannot  doubt,  in  that  event,  that  it  is  a  fact  of 
great  importance  for  us  to  know.  In  any  case,  we  are 
not  at  liberty  summarily  to  dismiss  the  testimony  of  the 
Gospels,  or  relegate  the  fact  they  attest  to  the  class  of 
*  open  questions,"  simply  because  we  do  not  happen  to 
think  it  is  important.    It  is  not  thus  that  science  stands 


24  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

before  its  facts.  If  an  alleged  fact  is  presented  to  sci- 
ence, it  does  not  first  ask:  What  is  the  importance  of 
the  fact?  but,  Is  the  fact  real?  If  it  is,  the  man  of 
science  is  sure  it  will  have  some  valuable  light  to  throw 
on  the  department  of  knowledge  to  which  it  belongs, 
whether  at  first  he  perceives  it  or  no.  This  is  the  spirit 
in  which  we  should  approach  the  subject  now  under  con- 
sideration. 

Still,  the  objection  will  be  pressed  that  the  Virgin 
Birth  does  not  enter  into  the  "  foundation  "  of  our 
Christian  faith;  hence  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  essen- 
tial article  of  belief.  It  did  not  form  part  of  the  foun- 
dation of  the  faith  of  the  Apostles,  or  of  the  earliest 
Christian  teachers,  so  cannot  be  reasonably  made  part 
of  the  foundation  of  ours.  It  might  be  replied,  for 
one  thing,  that  our  position  is,  after  all,  not  quite  that 
of  the  earliest  believers;  that  for  us  the  truth  is  now 
there,  and  that  we  have,  whether  we  will  or  no,  to  take 
up  some  kind  of  relation  to  it,  just  as  they  would  have 
had  to  do,  had  they  been  where  we  are.  But,  leaving 
the  discussion  of  the  faith  of  the  Apostles  to  its  own 
place,  and  without  prejudging  the  degree  of  their 
knowledge  of  this  mystery — a  matter  to  be  afterwards 
investigated — I  should  like  to  point  out  that  a  truth 
may  not  be  the  foundation  of  our  faith,  yet,  once  it  is 
known,  may  be  found  to  have  very  important  bearings 
on  our  faith,  to  contribute  to  it,  to  be  so  closely  related 
to  what  is  vital  in  our  faith,  that  our  faith  thencefor- 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  25 

ward  may  feel  it  to  be  indispensable,  and  would  be 
greatly  impoverished  without  it :  moreover,  that  a  truth 
may  not  be  the  foundation  of  my  faith  in  a  fact,  yet 
may  very  well  be  part  of  the  foundation  of  the  fact 
itself.  The  law  of  gravitation,  e.  g.,  is  no  part  of  the 
foundation  of  my  belief  that  stones  fall.  The  world 
knew  that  stones  fell  before  it  ever  heard  of  the  law 
of  gravitation.  Yet  the  law  of  gravitation  has  much 
to  do  with  a  proper  understanding  of  the  fact  that 
stones  fall,  and  more,  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  fact 
itself,  though  not  at  the  foundation  of  my  belief  in  it. 
Shakespeare's  authorship  is  no  part  of  the  foundation 
of  my  knowledge  of  the  play  of  Hamlet,  or  of  my  ap- 
preciation of  the  genius  displayed  in  it.  Yet  Shake- 
speare's authorship  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference  either 
to  the  origin,  or  to  the  character  of  the  play.  No  one 
I  ever  heard  of  has  affirmed  that  the  Virgin  Birth 
was  the  original  ground  of  the  belief  of  the  Apostles 
in  the  Incarnation  or  the  sinlessness  of  Christ.  These 
truths  stood  on  their  own  broad  evidence,  of  which  the 
Virgin  Birth  may  or  may  not  have  formed  part;  but  it 
in  nowise  follows  that  the  Virgin  Birth,  if  a  fact,  does 
not  stand  in  the  most  vital  relations  to  both  the  one  and 
the  other. 

This  leads  me  to  remark  that  there  seems  to  me  to 
be  in  these  discussions  a  constant  tendency  to  the  con- 
fusing of  two  very  different  things — the  foundation  of 
my  faith  in  the  Incarnation,  and  the  foundation  of  the 


26  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

fact  itself.  The  proposition  is  first  laid  down,  perhaps 
quite  truly,  though  not  necessarily  so :  "  The  Virgin 
Birth  does  not  enter  into  the  foundation  of  my  faith 
in  Christ's  Incarnation  and  sinlessness."  This  is  then 
immediately  transformed  into  the  other  proposition: 
"  It  does  not  enter  into  the  foundation  of  the  fact  of 
the  Incarnation  " — a  very  different  thing.  But  where 
is  the  proof  of  this  latter  proposition?  Is  it  sought 
in  our  ignorance  or  inability  to  see  the  connection? 
Need  I  remind  you  that  there  are  a  thousand  things 
in  nature  you  do  not  see  the  reason  of,  yet  they  are 
facts?  There  are  organs  in  the  body  the  uses  or  pre- 
cise functions  of  which  are  obscure;  but  sound  physiol- 
ogy does  not  doubt  that  they  have  their  uses,  and  does 
not  abandon  the  hope  of  yet  discovering  them.  You 
go  home  at  night  to  sleep,  yet  you  would  be  hard  put 
to  it  to  explain  why  it  should  be  necessary  to  spend  so 
large  a  portion  of  your  existence  in  this  state  of  dor- 
mancy. You  know,  of  course,  that  it  is  necessary  for 
the  recuperation  and  refreshment  of  the  body,  but  you 
cannot  tell  why.  Even,  therefore,  were  it  granted  that 
we  could  in  no  degree  penetrate  the  mystery  of  the 
connection  of  the  Virgin  Birth  with  the  Incarnation 
and  sinlessness  of  our  Lord,  it  would  be  unwarrantable 
dogmatism  on  our  part  to  declare  that  there  was  no 
connection.  Only  if  we  knew  all  the  implications  of 
these  transcendent  facts  would  we  have  the  right  to 
make  such  an  affirmation.    But  that  knowledge  no  one 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  27 

has,  and  our  very  ignorance  is  a  reason  why  we  should 
not  belittle  the  historically  recorded  fact. 

Thus  far  I  have  been  arguing  on  the  assumption  of 
the  opponent  that  no  obvious  relation  subsists  between 
the  Virgin  Birth,  and  the  other  elements  of  our  faith 
in  Christ.  I  desire  now  to  say,  however,  that  this,  in 
my  opinion,  is  far  from  being  the  case.  The  consider- 
ation of  this  connection  belongs  to  succeeding  lectures, 
but  there  is  one  thing,  I  think,  which  most  fair-minded 
people  will  be  willing  to  admit.  It  will  hardly  be  dis- 
puted that,  if  the  Incarnation  is  a  reality,  a  miracle 
of  some  kind  is  involved  in  the  constitution  of  our 
Lord's  divine  and  human  Person  —  even  on  the  as- 
sumption of  Christ's  perfect  sinlessness,  so  much  may 
be  conceded;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  granting  the  Vir- 
gin Birth,  it  will  hardly  be  denied  that  the  Person  so 
born  is,  in  some  sense,  superhuman  in  nature  and  dig- 
nity. We  may,  if  we  please,  deny  that  the  Incarnation 
necessarily  involves  the  Virgin  Birth;  but  few  will 
question,  at  least,  that,  if  Christ  was  born  from  the 
Virgin,  there  is  a  supernatural  element  in  His  Being. 

Only  one  thing  more  I  would  say  at  this  preliminary 
stage.  It  will  scarcely  be  doubted,  I  think,  that,  if  the 
Virgin  Birth  is  true,  it  is  a  fact  of  great  historical 
value.  A  chief  worth  of  the  narratives  of  the  Infancy 
is  just  that,  by  showing  how  Christ  actually  came  into 
the  world,  they  incorporate  Him,  as  nothing  else  could 
do,  into  the  history  of  the  world,  give  Him  a  real  place 


28  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

in  the  history  of  our  humanity,  and  furnish  the  need- 
ful introduction  to  what  is  told  us  regarding  Him  by 
the  other  Evangelists.  The  Gospel  of  Mark,  e.  g., 
brings  Jesus  before  us  at  His  entrance  on  His  public 
ministry  without  preface  or  explanation.  Had  this  been 
all  that  was  told  regarding  Him,  His  history  would 
have  hung,  so  to  speak,  in  the  air.  It  would  have 
had  no  beginning;  just  as,  if  the  resurrection  were 
wanting,  it  would  have  had  no  suitable  ending.  We 
shall  see  afterwards  how,  in  the  conflicts  of  the  early 
Church,  the  Fathers  made  effective  use  of  these  narra- 
tives in  warding  off,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Gnostic  denial 
of  our  Lord's  real  humanity,  and,  on  the  other,  the 
Ebionitic  lowering  of  the  divine  significance  of  His 
Person — thus  preserving  to  the  Church  His  true  image 
as  at  once  Son  of  Man  and  Son  of  God.1  These  much- 
assailed  narratives  have  thus  approved  themselves  as 
possessed  of  a  historical  and  doctrinal  worth  which 
should  make  us  very  cautious  how  we  join  in  any  de- 
preciation or  thoughtless  surrender  of  them.  For  some, 
I  know,  this  historic  value  of  the  narratives  will  only 
aggravate  their  offence.  Religion,  we  will  be  told,  can- 
not be  bound  up  with  historic  facts.  I  reply — Religion 
abstractly  may  not  be;  but  a  religion  like  the  Chris- 
tian, which  has  its  essence  in  the  entrance  of  God  into 
history  for  man's  redemption,  cannot  but  be.     This 

1  See  good  remarks  on  this  in  Rev.  Louis  M.  Sweet's  The  Birth 
and  Infancy  of  Jesus  Christ,  pp.  14/f. 


STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE  29 

means  that,  if  we  are  to  gain  the  full  benefit  of  the  re- 
ligion, we  must  believe  in  the  facts  on  which  it  is  based. 
We  shall  see,  I  hope,  as  we  proceed,  that  among  these 
Christian  facts,  not  the  least  fruitful  in  help  to  mind 
and  heart  is  the  Virgin  Birth. 


LECTURE   II 

THE     GOSPEL     WITNESSES GENUINENESS     AND     INTEGRITY 

OF    THE    RECORDS 

An  inquiry  into  the  historical  reality  of  the  Virgin 
Birth  naturally  begins  with  the  documents  from  which 
the  knowledge  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  derived.  These 
are,  as  every  one  knows,  the  two  Gospels  of  Matthew 
and  Luke — the  opening  chapters  in  each,  with  part  of 
the  third  chapter  of  Luke,  containing  the  genealogy.1 
I  shall  afterwards  have  to  deal  with  the  objection  that 
the  other  two  Gospels,  Mark  and  John,  do  not  furnish 
such  narratives.  Perfectly  good  reasons,  I  think,  can 
be  given  for  the  omission;  but  this  is  a  question  to  be 
investigated  by  itself.  At  present  we  are  concerned, 
not  with  the  silence  of  the  New  Testament,  but  with  its 
speech;  and  here  the  salient  fact  before  us  is,  that  in 
two  of  our  Gospels  out  of  the  four — the  only  two  that 
narrate  the  birth  of  Jesus  at  all — we  do  have  this  cir- 
cumstantial testimony  regarding  Christ's  human  origin, 
that  He  was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.    This  is  a  weighty  fact,  if  there  were  no 

i  Matt,  i.,  ii.;  Luke  i.,  ii.;  hi.  23-38. 
30 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  31 

other,  and  we  do  well  to  consider  it  closely  and  care- 
fully. 

My  starting-point,  then,  is  this,  that  we  have  these 
narratives  of  the  two  Gospels,  both  bearing  witness 
that  our  Lord  was  born  of  a  Virgin.  To  set  this  fact 
of  the  witness  of  the  Gospels  in  its  true  light,  there 
are  certain  things  which  it  is  important  to  notice  re- 
garding it. 

1.  I  would  ask  you  to  observe,  what  I  have  just 
noted,  that  this  is  the  only  account  of  Christ's  birth  we 
possess.  You  may  think  you  see  indications  in  other 
parts  of  the  Gospels  that  our  Lord  was  not  born  as 
these  opening  chapters  describe:  that  can  be  discussed 
after.  What  I  wish  at  present  to  impress  is  that,  if  this 
account  which  the  Evangelists  give  is  parted  with,  you 
have  no  narrative  at  all  of  how  or  where  Christ  was 
born,  or  of  anything  about  Him  prior  to  His  baptism. 
You  read,  e.  g.,  in  books  like  Pfleiderer's  Christian 
Origins,  or  in  "  modern  "  Lives  of  Jesus  like  Bousset's 
or  Oscar  Holtzmann's,  that  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary,  was  born  at  Nazareth.1  But  there  is  no 
historical  corroboration  for  that  categorical  statement. 
The  Gospels  are  our  only  authorities  on  the  subject, 
and  the  same  Evangelists  who  tell  us  that  Jesus  was 
"  brought  up  "  2  with  Joseph  and  Mary  at  Nazareth, 

^fleiderer,  p.  83;  Bousset's  Jesus,  p.  2;  O.  Holtzmann,  Leben 
Jesu,  p.  68.     Cf.  Renan,  quoted  above,  p.  5.  2  Luke  iv.  16. 


32  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

tell  us  that  He  was  not  born  at  Nazareth,  but  was  born 
at  Bethlehem,  and  that  it  was  after  His  birth  that 
Joseph  and  Mary  settled  in  Nazareth.  It  is  made  a 
contradiction  between  Matthew  and  Luke  that  Mat- 
thew is  said  to  know  nothing  of  Joseph  and  Mary's 
previous  residence  in  Nazareth,  which  Luke,  on  the 
other  hand,  relates.1  But  Luke  is  as  explicit  as  Mat- 
thew that  it  was  not  at  Nazareth,  but  at  Bethlehem,  that 
Jesus  was  born.  As  it  is  with  the  place,  so  it  is  with 
the  time  of  Christ's  birth.  It  is  usual  to  say  that  Jesus 
was  born  shortly  before  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great 
(4  B.C.);  but,  if  the  birth-narratives  are  rejected,  there 
are,  as  Wellhausen  seems  to  admit,2  no  reliable  data  on 
which  to  found  so  precise  an  assertion. 

It  may  be  argued,  indeed,  that,  because  parts  of  the 
narratives  are  rejected,  we  are  not  bound  to  reject  the 
whole;  some  true  elements  of  tradition  may  be  pre- 
served in  them.  One  writer — the  only  one  I  know — 
who  tried  this  plan  was  Beyschlag.  Beyschlag  thought 
he  could  pick  and  choose;  take  some  parts  and  leave 
others.  He  very  justly  argued  that,  at  the  time  when 
Matthew  and  Mark  wrote,  any  free  invention  of  the 
stories  of  the  Infancy  would  have  met  with  instant  con- 
tradiction from  the  family  of  Jesus.  He  sought,  there- 
fore, to  save  some  fragments  of  the  narratives — the 
birth  at  Bethlehem,  the  visit  of  the  shepherds,  etc. — 

«  Luke  i.  26;  ii.  4.     See  below,  pp.  34,  99. 
2  Das  Evang.  Lucae,  p.  6. 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  33 

while  rejecting  the  fact  which  is  the  kernel  of  the 
whole,  the  Virgin  Birth.1  It  is  agreed  on  all  hands, 
however,  that  this  arbitrary  procedure  of  Beyschlag's 
is  quite  inadmissible.  The  cycle  of  narration  in  both 
Evangelists  is  too  firmly  connected  to  be  thus  broken 
up;  and  the  authority  for  one  part  of  the  story,  as  we 
shall  immediately  see,  is  the  same  as  the  authority  for 
the  rest.  I  repeat,  then,  that,  if  these  narratives  are 
rejected,  we  really  know  nothing  of  the  circumstances 
of  Christ's  birth  at  all. 

2.  The  only  accounts  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  we  have 
declare  that  He  was  born  of  a  Virgin.  My  next  point 
is  that  we  have  two  such  accounts,  and  that  the  ac- 
counts are  independent.  There  are  two  evangelical 
witnesses,  not  one;  and,  as  the  most  cursory  inspection 
of  the  narratives  shows,  their  testimony  is  independent- 
ly given.  Attempts  have  been  made,  I  know,  by  one 
or  two  scholars  to  show  some  kind  of  dependence  of 
one  narrative  on  the  other,  or  of  both  on  some  common 
source.2     These   isolated   attempts   have   met  with  no 

1  Leben  Jesu,  I,  pp.  159 ff  (3d  Ed.).     See  below,  p.  76. 

2  E.  g.,  the  writer  Conrady  (Die  Quellen  der  kanonischen  Kind- 
heitsgeschichte  Jesu)  seeks  to  derive  the  narratives  from  the  apocry- 
phal Protevangelium  of  James  (the  relation  is  really  the  reverse); 
another  writer,  Reitzenstein,  derives  from  an  earlier  Gospel  supposed 
to  be  indicated  by  a  poorly  preserved  Egyptian  fragment  of  the  6th 
cent.;  Resch  (Texte  und  Unters.,  x.  5,  p.  208)  derives  from  a  purely 
imaginary  Book  of  the  Generations  of  Jesus  Christ,  etc.  See  a  good 
account  of  these  and  cognate  theories  in  papers  by  J.  Gresham 
Machen,  in  The  Princeton  Theol.  Review  for  Oct.,  1905,  pp.  648-9; 
Jan.,  1906,  pp.  39-42. 


34  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

favour,  and  need  not  here  detain  us.  The  favourite 
method  of  dealing  with  the  narratives  is  rather  to  seek 
to  discredit  their  trustworthiness  by  pitting  one  against 
the  other,  and  declaring  them  to  be  divergent  and  con- 
tradictory. I  shall  immediately  endeavour  to  show  that 
the  two  narratives,  so  far  from  being  contradictory,  in 
reality  remarkably  corroborate  and  supplement  each 
other.  In  proof  that  the  alleged  discrepancies  are  not 
really  serious,  I  might  appeal  to  one  of  the  latest  of 
these  critical  writers,  Oscar  Holtzmann,  who,  in  his 
recently  published  Life  of  Jesus,  tells  us :  "  A  contra- 
diction between  these  narratives  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
does  not  exist;  even  in  regard  to  the  places  of  residence 
there  is  no  need  for  assuming  one."  *  The  difficulty 
about  the  places  of  residence  has  already  been  referred 
to.  Matthew  does  not  mention  the  former  residence 
of  Joseph  and  Mary  at  Nazareth,  and  speaks  as  if, 
after  Christ's  birth,  they  went  to  Nazareth  for  the 
first  time.2  Suppose,  however,  that  Matthew  did  not 
know  of  this  earlier  residence,  but,  in  writing  his  Gos- 
pel, kept  faithfully  to  the  information  he  had,  without 
adding  or  inventing — is  this  a  contradiction,  or  a  rea- 
son for  distrust?  But  I  do  not  think  we  need  assume 
even  this.  A  writer  like  Soltau,  indeed,  permits  him- 
self to  say:  "  We  learn  from  Matthew  that  Bethlehem 
was  the  real  native  place  of  Joseph  and  Mary."  3  But 
there  is  not  an  atom  of  foundation  for  this  statement. 
«  Leben  Jesu,  p.  65.        2  Matt.  ii.  23.       3  Op.  cit.,  p.  30  (E.  T.). 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  35 

Matthew  says  nothing  in  his  first  chapter  as  to  where 
the  events  he  narrates  happened;  it  is  not  till  the  sec- 
ond chapter  that  he  mentions  Bethlehem  of  Judaea  as 
the  place  where  Christ  was  born.  When,  therefore,  he 
tells  of  the  withdrawal  of  Joseph  and  Mary  to  Naza- 
reth after  the  return  from  Egypt,  he  naturally  names 
the  place  for  the  first  time. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  necessity  for  assuming  real 
contradiction;  but  the  point  I  would  urge,  as  it  has 
often  been  urged  before,  is,  that  the  very  existence  of 
these  so-called  discrepancies  is  a  proof  of  the  entire 
independence  of  the  narratives.  It  is  the  complete  in- 
dependence of  the  accounts,  in  truth,  which  is  the 
cause  of  any  superficial  appearance  of  discrepancy 
which  they  present.  They  tell  their  story  from  differ- 
ent points  of  view — what  these  are  will  be  seen  after- 
wards; they  group  their  facts  from  a  different  motive, 
and  for  a  different  purpose.  They  evidently  have  dif- 
ferent sources.  Yet  in  the  great  central  fact,  viz. :  that 
Jesus,  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  born  of  Mary, 
a  Virgin  betrothed  to  Joseph,  with  his  full  knowledge 
of  the  cause — in  this  they  are  altogether  at  one:  this 
stands  out  sun-clear  in  the  narratives,  and  was  never, 
so  far  as  we  know,  challenged  in  the  Church  from  the 
time  it  was  made  public,  save  by  the  insignificant 
Ebionitic  fraction  already  mentioned.1 

1  On  the  fewness  of  the  Ebionites,  cf.  Salmon,  Introd.  to  N.  T.,  p. 
173  (2d  Ed.). 


36  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

3.  The  independence  of  the  narratives  is  a  guaran- 
tee of  their  worth.  It  shows  that  they  are  not  inven- 
tions of  either  of  the  Evangelists,  but  are  drawn  from 
an  outside  source — nay,  from  two  sources,  which  are 
distinct,  yet  agree  in  their  testimony  to  the  essential 
fact.  I  desire  now  to  take  a  further  step,  and  to  show 
that  the  narratives  are  not  only  not  contradictory,  but 
in  a  singular  degree  are  mutually  corroborative  and 
complementary.  This  is  evidently  a  point  affecting 
closely  the  value  of  their  testimony. 

The  critics  speak  of  the  discrepancies  of  the  narra- 
tives. Much  more  remarkable,  it  seems  to  me,  are  their 
agreements,  and  the  subtle  harmonies  that  pervade 
them.  The  agreements,  if  we  study  them  carefully, 
prove  to  be  far  more  numerous  than  may  at  first  strike 
us.  Here,  e.  g.,  is  a  list  of  twelve  points,  which  lie 
really  on  the  surface  of  the  narratives,  yet  give  very 
nearly  the  gist  of  the  whole  story.  (1)  Jesus  was  born 
in  the  last  days  of  Herod.1  (2)  He  was  conceived  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.2  (3)  His  mother  was  a  Virgin.3 
(4)  She  was  betrothed  to  Joseph.4  (5)  Joseph  was  of 
the  house  and  lineage  of  David.5  (6)  Jesus  was.  born 
at  Bethlehem.6  (7)  By  divine  direction  He  was  called 
Jesus.7  (8)  He  was  declared  to  be  a  Saviour.8  (9) 
Joseph  knew  beforehand  of  Mary's  condition  and  its 

i  Matt.  ii.  1,  13;  Luke  i.  5.  «  Matt.  i.  16,  20;  Luke  i.  27;  ii.  4. 

2  Matt.  i.  18,  20;  Luke  i.  35.  8  Matt.  ii.  1;  Luke  ii.  4,  6. 

3  Matt.  i.  18,  20,  23;  Luke  i.  27,  34.  '  Matt.  i.  21 ;  Luke  i.  31. 
•  Matt.  i.  18;  Luke  i.  27;  ii.  5.  ■  Matt.  i.  21;  Luke  ii.  11. 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  37 

cause.1  (10)  Nevertheless  he  took  Mary  to  wife,  and 
assumed  full  paternal  responsibilities  for  her  child — 
was  from  the  first  in  loco  parentis  to  Jesus.2  (11)  The 
Annunciation  and  birth  were  attended  by  revelations 
and  visions.3  (12)  After  the  birth  of  Jesus,  Joseph 
and  Mary  dwelt  in  Nazareth.4 

This,  however,  is  not  the  whole.  For  here  a  fact 
emerges  about  these  narratives  to  which  we  cannot  give 
too  much  attention.  There  is  this  common  basis  of 
agreement  of  which  I  have  spoken.  But  careful  in- 
spection of  the  narratives  shows  that,  even  in  the  re- 
spects in  which  they  are  divergent,  so  far  from  being 
discrepant,  they  are  really,  in  a  singular  way,  comple- 
mentary; that  where  a  careless  glance  suggests  con- 
trariety, there  is  really  deep  and  beautiful  harmony. 
The  full  illustration  of  this  belongs  to  a  later  stage ;  5 
but,  at  the  risk  of  anticipating  what  is  to  come  after, 
let  me  take  a  single  crucial  example.  Is  it  not  strange 
that  Luke's  Gospel,  while  giving  us  such  full  accounts 
about  Mary,  should  tell  us  next  to  nothing  about  Jo- 
seph, and  specially  about  his  state  of  mind  when  he 
first  learned  of  the  situation  of  his  betrothed  wife? 
It  is  implied  in  Luke's  narrative,  as  in  Matthew's,  that 

»Matt.  i.  18-20;  Luke  ii.  5. 

2  Matt.  i.  20,  24,  25;  Luke  ii.  5ff. 

3  Matt.  i.  20,  etc.;  Luke  i.  27,  28,  etc. 
*Matt.  ii.  23;  Luke  ii.  39. 

8  See  below,  pp.  83/f .  It  will  be  found  that  Matthew's  narrative 
is  told  throughout  from  the  standpoint  of  Joseph;  Luke's  from  that 
of  Mary. 


38  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

Joseph  came  to  know  that  Mary  was  about  to  become 
a  mother,  and,  when  he  did  know  it,  the  fact  must 
have  profoundly  staggered  him.  Yet  in  Luke,  as  in 
Matthew,  he  appears  later  with  Mary  at  Bethlehem, 
takes  Mary  to  wife,  and  assumes  parental  responsibil- 
ities for  Mary's  babe.  What  had  happened  in  the  in- 
terval to  clear  his  mind  of  any  doubts  or  perplexities 
he  had  entertained,  and  to  induce  him  to  act  as  he  did? 
Luke  has  not  a  syllable  in  explanation,  but  Matthew 
tells  it  all.  Matthew,  again,  tells  us  fully  of  Joseph's 
difficulties  and  perplexities.  But  what  of  Mary?  What 
did  she  say  or  think  of  this  wonderful  thing  that  had 
happened  to  her?  How  did  she  come  to  learn  the 
truth  about  herself?  Matthew  has  not  a  word  on  this 
subject,  but  Luke  tells  it  all.  In  a  most  real  sense, 
therefore,  the  narratives  are  shown  to  be  complemen- 
tary. Neither  is  complete  in  itself;  both  are  needed 
to  tell  the  whole  story.  And  subtler  harmonies  still 
will  reveal  themselves  when  we  come  to  look  more 
closely  into  the  character  of  the  narratives. 

This,  then,  is  my  first  fact — the  existence  of  two 
distinct,  yet  mutually  complementary  narratives  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord.  I  come  now  to  discuss  a 
second — closely  connected  with  the  foregoing — the  evi- 
dence we  have  for  the  genuineness  and  integrity  of 
these  narratives  as  parts  of  the  Gospels  to  which  they 
belong. 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  39 

This  is  a  question  which  I  must  argue  with  some 
care,  for  it  has  been  contested.  It  is  evident  that  if, 
from  dislike  of  miracle,  or  any  other  cause,  these  rec- 
ords containing  the  story  of  our  Lord's  birth  are  to 
be  got  rid  of,  it  is  necessary  in  some  way  to  break 
down  their  credit  as  early  and  authentic  productions. 
If  these  sections  are  really  genuine  parts  of  the  origi- 
nal Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke — assuming  the  lat- 
ter, as  I  here  do  provisionally,  to  be  themselves  genu- 
ine documents  of  the  Apostolic  Age — most  will  feel 
that  a  long  step  is  taken  to  establish  the  historical  truth 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  which  they  narrate.  It  is,  there- 
fore, almost  a  vital  point  for  the  opponents  to  disprove 
their  original  and  authentic  character.  Can  this  be 
done?  I  am  here  to  affirm  with  some  confidence  that 
it  cannot.  My  second  fact — as  I  call  it — which  I 
oppose  to  their  contention  is,  that  these  chapters  con- 
taining the  narratives  of  the  Virgin  Birth  are  attested 
by  all  available  evidence  as  indubitably  genuine  parts  of 
their  respective  Gospels. 

What  are  the  means  of  proof  which  it  is  usual  to 
apply  in  such  cases  ?  A  first  source  of  evidence  is  Manu- 
scripts. It  is  here  to  be  remembered  that  the  wealth 
of  MS.  authority  for  the  Gospels,  as  for  the  New  Testa- 
ment generally,  is  without  a  parallel  in  literature.  We 
can  see  this  most  easily  by  comparison  with  the  MS. 
authority  for  the  works  we  call  the  classics.  Of  some 
important  classical  works  only  one  MS.   is  in   exist- 


40  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

ence — Nestle  reminds  us,  for  instance,  that  all  we  pos- 
sess of  Sophocles  depends  on  a  single  MS.  of  the  eighth 
or  ninth  century; x  ten  or  fifteen  is  thought  a  large 
number  for  others;  and  few  of  these  go  beyond  the 
tenth  century,  or  are  even  so  old.  In  contrast  with 
this,  the  MSS.  of  the  Gospels,  whole  or  parts,  are  reck- 
oned by  scores;  if  you  include  cursives,  by  hundreds; 
and  some  of  these,  as  is  well  known,  are  of  great  age 
and  authority.  The  great  Uncials,  e.  g.,  go  back  to 
the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  with,  as  their  peculiari- 
ties show,  a  long  textual  history  behind.  Another  chief 
source  of  evidence  is  Versions,  to  which  have  to  be 
added  quotations,  and  all  the  other  indirect  means  by 
which  the  existence  and  genuineness  of  a  book  can  be 
ascertained.  The  net  result  of  the  application  of  these 
tests  in  the  present  case  can  be  readily  stated.  Is  there 
a  single  unmutilated  MS.  of  the  Gospels — older  or 
younger — from  which  these  chapters  in  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  absent?  Not  one.  Are  these  sections  absent 
from  any  of  the  Versions?  So  far  as  our  evidence 
goes — No. 

The  case,  however,  is  too  important  to  be  thus  sum- 
marily dismissed,  and  I  propose  to  take  up  the  evidence 
under  these  heads  more  particularly. 

1.  I  have  said  that  the  opening  chapters  of  our  two 
Gospels  are  found  in  all  unmutilated  MSS.  That 
broad  fact  will  not  be  disputed.  But  let  me  try  to 
»  Textual  Criticism,  p.  33  (E.  T.). 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  41 

emphasise  the  moral  of  the  fact  by  contrast.  You  are 
aware  of  the  doubt  which  attaches  to  the  last  twelve 
verses  of  Mark's  Gospel.  In  the  margin  of  the  E.  V., 
you  will  find  this  note  opposite  ver.  8 :  "  The  two  old- 
est Greek  MSS.,  and  some  other  authorities,  omit  from 
ver.  9  to  the  end.  Some  other  authorities  have  a  dif- 
ferent ending  to  the  Gospel."  Here  is  very  strong 
evidence  that  these  last  verses  did  not  belong  to  the 
original  Gospel,  but  were  supplied  to  take  the  place 
of  the  lost  original  ending.  So  again  with  the  episode 
of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  in  John  vii.  53  to  viii. 
11.  These  verses  are  bracketed  in  the  R.  V.,  and  the 
note  is  added  that  most  of  the  ancient  authorities  omit 
them.  But  there  is  no  lacuna  or  omission  of  a  similar 
kind  in  regard  to  the  opening  chapters  of  Matthew  and 
Luke.  Take  the  oldest  Uncials.  The  Sinaitic  MS.  [  k  .] 
— the  chapters  are  there.  The  Alexandrian  MS.  [A] 
— this  is  mutilated  down  as  far  as  Matt,  xxv.,  but 
Luke  i.,  ii.,  are  there,  and  nobody  doubts  that  the  first 
chapters  of  Matthew  were  there  also.  The  Vatican 
MS.  [B]— there.  The  Codex  Ephraemi  [C]— there. 
The  Codex  Bezae  [D],  representing  an  independent 
(Western)  text — there.  Uncials  and  cursives  generally 
— there  in  all. 

2.  That  is  MSS.:  glance  now  at  Versions.  It  was 
very  early  in  the  history  of  the  Church  that  transla- 
tions of  the  Gospels  and  of  other  New  Testament  writ- 
ings began  to  be  made  into  the  languages  of  the  coun- 


42  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

tries  into  which  Christianity  had  spread.  Hence, 
beginning  with  the  second  century,  we  have  the  rise  of 
Syriac,  Latin,  Egyptian,  and  other  Versions,  the  MSS. 
remains  of  which  throw  light  on  the  kind  of  Scrip- 
tures circulating  in  these  sections  of  the  Church.  And 
what  do  they  tell  us?  The  chapters  containing  the 
birth-narratives  are  as  little  absent  from  the  Versions 
as  they  are  from  the  Greek  MSS.  They  are  there  in 
all  the  Latin  Versions;  in  the  Vulgate  of  Jerome,  of 
course,  but  also  in  the  Old  Latin  Versions,  going  back 
as  far  as  the  days  of  Tertullian.  They  are  there  in 
all  the  Syriac  Versions — in  the  Peshitta,  in  the  Cure- 
tonian,  in  that  very  old  Syriac  Version  discovered  by 
Mrs.  Lewis  in  the  convent  at  Mt.  Sinai  in  1892.  They 
are  there  in  all  the  Egyptian  (Coptic)  Versions — in  a 
word,  are  there  in  all.  In  that  famous  old  Syriac  Har- 
mony of  the  Four  Gospels  made  by  Tatian  about  160 
or  170 — the  Diatessaron — recently  so  strikingly  recov- 
ered, the  chapters  are  present,  though  the  genealogies 
are  dropped,  probably  as  unsuitable  for  the  author's 
purpose.  The  Harmony  is  now  translated,  and  any  one 
can  consult  the  book,  and  read  the  narratives  for  him- 
self. Other  sources  of  evidence  yield  the  same  result. 
The  quotations  and  allusions  in  Justin  Martyr,  Tatian's 
master,  show  that  these  chapters  were  in  the  "  Gos- 
pels "  or  "  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  "  which  he  tells 
us  were  read  week  by  week  in  the  assemblies  of  the 
Christians.1  Even  the  Epicurean  Celsus,  the  bitter 
1 1  Apology,  66,  67;  Dial,  with  Trypho,  10,  100,  103. 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  43 

heathen  opponent  of  Christianity  in  the  second  century, 
draws  freely  in  his  attacks  on  the  Gospels  from  the  in- 
cidents in  the  birth-narratives — the  genealogies,  the 
star  in  the  East,  the  flight  into  Egypt,  the  Virgin  Birth 
itself.1 

3.  There  are  three  special  recensions  of  the  Gos- 
pels, however,  respecting  which  we  have  information, 
on  which,  in  this  connection,  I  must  make  a  few  re- 
marks. 

(1)  There  is  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  an  Aramaic 
version  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  in  use  among  that 
more  liberal  section  of  the  Jewish  Christians  whom 
Jerome  calls  Nazarenes — those  who,  while  retaining 
their  Jewish  customs  for  themselves,  accepted  the  mis- 
sion of  Paul,  and  did  not  seek  to  impose  circumcision 
and  the  Jewish  law  upon  the  Gentiles.  It  was  an  idea 
formerly  sometimes  mooted — Jerome  himself  seems  at 
first  to  have  entertained  it — that  this  Gospel  of  the  He- 
brews was  the  original  of  our  present  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew. But  that  opinion  has  long  since  been  aban- 
doned.2 The  Gospel  in  question  was  dependent  on  our 
Matthew,  not  the  original  of  it,  and,  while  there  must 
have  been  a  general  resemblance,  it  had  a  good  many 
apocryphal  additions.  Unfortunately  we  only  know  it 
in  extracts.  The  point  of  interest  for  us  is  that  this 
Jewish-Christian  Gospel  likewise  had  the  chapters  re- 

*  Origen,  Against  Celsus,  i.  38-40;  ii.  32. 

2  Cf.  Stanton,  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  I,  pp.  258ff. 
Meyer,  Com.  Introd.;  Salmon,  Introd.  to  N.  T.,  etc. 


44  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

cording  the  birth  and  infancy  of  Jesus.  Harnack,  I 
know,  disputes  this.  But  he  stands  almost  alone  in 
doing  so,  and  the  reasons  against  his  opinion  seem  con- 
clusive. We  have  the  direct  attestation  of  Eusebius 
that  the  section  of  Jewish  Christians  using  this  Gospel 
were  distinguished  by  their  accepting  the  Virgin  Birth 
of  our  Lord.1  We  have  the  testimony  of  Epiphanius 
that  the  Gospel  used  by  the  Nazarenes  was  a  complete 
one ;  2  we  can  be  certain  that  Jerome,  who  knew  and 
translated  the  Gospel,  would  not  have  failed  to  men- 
tion so  serious  an  omission,  had  it  existed;  finally,  what 
appears  decisive,  we  have  actual  allusions  in  Jerome  to 
the  contents  of  these  early  chapters  in  the  Hebrew  Gos- 
pel. Thus  he  notices  that  it  had  the  peculiar  reading 
"  Bethlehem  of  Judah  "  for  "  Bethlehem  of  Judsea  " 
in  Matt.  ii.  5 ;  also  the  citations  of  prophecy,  "  Out  of 
Egypt  have  I  called  my  Son,"  and  "  He  shall  be  called 
a  Nazarene  " — both  unmistakably  from  Matthew.3 

(2)  This,  however,  was  not  the  only  form  of  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  in  circulation  among  the  Hebrew 
Christians.  There  was  a  version  in  use  among  that 
narrower  section  known  commonly  as  the  Ebionites — 
the  descendants,  formerly  alluded  to,4  of  those   anti- 

1  Eusebius,  iii.  27;  cf.  Origen,  Against  Celsus,  v.  61. 

2  Cf .  Westcott,  Introd.  to  Gospels,  p.  465. 

3  Cf.  Stanton,  op.  tit.,  p.  258. 

4  See  above,  pp.  11,  35.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  name  Ebion- 
ites was  often  given  by  the  Fathers  to  all  Jewish  Christians.  The 
different  classes  were  then  distinguished  by  their  Christological  and 
other  peculiarities. 


THE   GOSPEL  WITNESSES  45 

Pauline  Judaizers  we  read  of  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epis- 
tles, who  contended  for  the  imposition  of  the  Mosaic 
law  upon  the  Gentiles.  These  held  Jesus  to  be  merely 
a  man,  chosen  by  God  on  account  of  his  legal  piety. 
We  do  not  know  much  about  the  Gospel  used  by  this 
party — the  so-called  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites — but  it  is 
described  to  us  as  not  "  entire  and  perfectly  complete, 
but  falsified  and  mutilated  ' ;  *  and  we  do  know  that 
it  omitted  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew,  and  com- 
menced :  "  It  came  to  pass  in  the  days  of  Herod,  King 
of  Judaea,  that  John  came  baptizing  with  a  baptism  of 
repentance  in  the  river  Jordan,  who  was  said  to  be  of 
the  race  of  Aaron  the  priest,  a  son  of  Zachariah  and 
Elisabeth,  and  all  went  out  to  him."  2  Of  course,  a 
Gospel  of  this  kind,  which  puts  the  baptism  of  John 
in  the  days  of  Herod  of  Judaea,  and  otherwise  falsifies 
its  text,  is  absolutely  worthless.  But  it  will  be  ob- 
served how,  even  in  rejecting  the  narratives  of  the  In- 
fancy, it  is  forced  unwittingly  to  bear  testimony  to 
them ;  for  where  else  does  it  get  the  date,  "  in  the  days 
of  Herod,  King  of  Judaea,"  3  and  the  information  about 
Zachariah  and  Elisabeth,  the  parents  of  John?4  Most 
probably  the  Gospel  was  simply  a  badly  corrupted  ver- 
sion of  The  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  with  the  first  two 
chapters  left  out. 

Why  have  I  spent  so  much  time  on  this  obscure 

1  Westcott,  op.  cit.,  p.  467.  3  Matt.  ii.  1;  Luke  i.  5. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  466.  A  Luke  i.  5. 


46  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

Gospel  of  a  backward  and  reactionary  sect?  Simply 
because,  as  I  hinted  before,  this  is  the  solitary  in- 
stance within  the  Church  of  any  sort  of  party  who  re- 
jected the  narrative  of  the  supernatural  birth.  I  say 
within  the  Church,  though  we  see  from  Justin  Martyr 
that  already  by  the  middle  of  the  second  century  this 
sect  was  coming  to  be  regarded  as  hardly  a  part  of  the 
true  Church.1  Surely,  however,  it  requires  hardihood 
on  the  part  of  any  one  to  hold  that  this  reactionary 
party — this  mere  side-eddy  in  the  stream  of  the 
Church's  development — represented  the  true,  original 
Christianity,  and  that  their  Gospel  was  the  genuine 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  instead  of  being,  as  has  always 
been  believed,  a  corrupt  and  mutilated  form  of  that 
Gospel.2  In  any  case  it  is  certain  that  it  was  not  the 
original  Gospel  of  Matthew,  any  more  than  the  Gospel 
of  the  Hebrews  itself  was. 

(3)  I  have  to  notice  still  a  third  non-canonical  recen- 
sion— the  Gospel  of  Luke  used  by  Marcion.  Marcion 
was  a  Gnostic  teacher  (c.  140),  who  held  that  the  God 
of  the  Old  Testament  was  an  inferior,  imperfect  Being, 
in  contrast  with  the  good  God  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  who  believed  in  the  essential  evil  of  matter.  He 
could  not,  therefore,  in  consistency  with  his  principles, 
allow  that  Jesus  was,  I  do  not  say  supernaturally  born, 

i  Dial,  with  Trypho,  47;  cf.  Ritschl,  Altkathol.  Kirche  (2d  Ed.), 
p.  253. 

2  Keim  actually  bases  on  this  Gospel  an  argument  for  the  omission 
of  chs.  i.,  ii.  from  the  original  Gospel  of  Matthew. 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  47 

but  born  at  all.  Marcion  drew  up  for  himself  a  Canon 
which  included  one  Gospel — that  of  Luke — and  ten 
Epistles  of  Paul.  But  his  Gospel  of  Luke  had  not  the 
first  two  chapters.  It  began  at  the  third  chapter :  "  In 
the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius,"  then  passed 
to  ch.  iv.  31;  "  He  came  down  [i.  e.,  from  heaven] 
to  the  Galilean  city  of  Capernaum."  *  Here,  again, 
the  attempt  was  formerly  made  by  certain  writers  to 
show  that  Marcion's  Gospel  represented  the  original 
Luke.  But  the  attempt  met  with  no  success.  Ritschl, 
who  at  first  advocated  this  view,  afterwards  gave  it  up. 
Dr.  Sanday  gave  it  its  death-blow  in  England  when  re- 
vived by  the  author  of  the  book  called  Supernatural 
Religion.  I  do  not  know  of  any  scholar  who  now  holds 
it.2  The  discussion  on  Marcion's  Gospel  thus  really 
turned  round  into  a  new  evidence  that  the  genuine 
Luke  had  these  two  chapters. 

I  have  thus  surveyed  the  field  of  MSS.  and  Versions, 
and  have  sought  to  show  you  how  absolutely  unbroken 
is  the  phalanx  of  evidence  that  these  first  chapters  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  are  genuine  parts  of  the  Gospels  in 
which  they  are  found.  Well,  but,  I  have  no  doubt  you 
are  long  ere  this  asking  in  surprise:  If  the  facts  are 
thus  undeniable,  what  do  the  objectors  say  to  them? 
How  are  they  dealt  with?    One  characteristic  example 


1  Cf.  Tertullian,  Against  Marcion, 

2  Cf.  Plummer,  Luke,  p.  lxviii. 


iv.  7. 


48  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

of  how  they  are  dealt  with  may  perhaps  suffice.  Here 
are  two  recent  publications  of  the  great  Old  Testament 
critic  Wellhausen — The  Gospel  of  Matthew,  Translated 
and  Explained,  and  The  Gospel  of  Luke,  Translated  and 
Explained.1  I  take  up  his  version  of  the  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew, and  what  do  I  find?  It  begins  with  ch.  iii.  1. 
What  has  become  of  the  first  two  chapters?  They 
are  simply  dropped  out.  For  what  reason?  There  is 
not  a  word  of  note  or  comment  to  explain.  The  critic 
thinks  they  should  not  be  there,  so,  MSS.  and  Versions 
notwithstanding,  out  they  go.  It  is  the  same  with  the 
Gospel  of  Luke.  I  open  it  as  before,  and  find  it  begins 
with  ch.  iii.  1.  Where  have  the  first  two  chapters  gone 
to?  Again  they  are  simply  dropped  out,  and  again  with- 
out note  or  explanation.  Here,  however,  is  a  third  work 
from  the  same  author — an  Introduction  to  the  First 
Three  Gospels.  Perhaps  we  shall  find  what  we  want 
there.  But  no.  There  is  a  minute  and  destructive 
criticism  of  the  Gospels;  much  about  Q,  the  alleged 
common  source  of  Matthew  and  Luke;  but  not  a  word 
in  explanation  of  why  these  chapters  are  dropped  from 
what  professes  to  be — and  in  the  main  is — a  version 
of  our  existing  Gospels.  It  is  no  doubt  easy  enough 
to  get  rid  of  the  evidence  for  the  Virgin  Birth  in  this 
way.  But  is  it  scientific?  Is  it  right?  Would  a  simi- 
lar treatment  be  tolerated  of  any  classical  work  ? 

1  Das  Evangelium  Matthaei,  uebersetzt  und  erkldrt   (1904).     Das 
Evangelium  Lucae,  etc.  (1904). 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  49 

It  is  the  case,  then,  that  there  is  no  external  warrant 
for  dropping  these  chapters  out  of  the  two  Gospels.  If 
they  are  rejected,  it  must  be  for  some  internal  reason 
which  the  critic  thinks  justifies  him  in  setting  aside  all 
this  mass  of  external  evidence.  So  it  has  been  held  by 
some — not  by  many — critics,  that  these  chapters  can- 
not be  original  parts  of  their  Gospels,  since — (1)  They 
lie  outside  the  limits  of  the  original  Apostolic  preach- 
ing; and  (2)  show  marks  of  being  additions  in  their 
looseness  of  connection,  and  in  their  difference  of  char- 
acter from  the  rest  of  the  Gospels.  I  might  almost 
be  excused,  in  view  of  what  has  been  advanced,  from 
dealing  with  these  subjective  and  arbitrary  reasons  for 
rejection,  but,  as  they  really,  when  fairly  considered, 
redound  to  the  strengthening  of  my  position,  I  give 
them  a  brief  consideration. 

(1)  The  first  objection  turns  on  the  limits  of  the 
oldest  Apostolic  tradition.  That  oldest  tradition,  as- 
sumed to  be  represented  by  the  common  parts  of  the 
first  three  Gospels,  and  thought  to  be  preserved  most 
nearly  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  had  no  narrative  of  the 
^Nativity.  It  began,  as  we  learn  from  Acts  i.  22,  with 
the  baptism  of  John,  and  ended  with  the  ascension. 
But,  granting  this,  how  can  it  prove  that  these  two 
Evangelists — Matthew  and  Luke — may  not  have  gone 
beyond  the  common  tradition,  if  they  felt  that  they 
had  information  enabling  them  to  do  so?  Or  how  can 
it  disprove  the  worth  of  their  information?     Matthew 


50  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

and  Luke  have  both  elsewhere  large  sections  not  found 
in  Mark,  and  Luke  has  some  six  chapters  wholly  his 
own.  Why  should  it  not  be  so  here?  The  facts  about 
Christ's  birth  and  childhood,  surely,  were  matters  about 
which  there  would  be  a  desire  for  information;  why, 
if  these  Evangelists  had  the  knowledge,  should  they 
not  impart  it?  I  cannot,  therefore,  allow  that  any 
weight  attaches  to  this  objection. 

(2)  The  second  objection,  drawn  from  internal 
marks  showing  the  narratives  to  be  additions,  is  more 
to  the  purpose,  if  it  can  be  made  good,  which,  however, 
it  certainly  cannot  be.  Keim,  e.  g.,  among  older  wri- 
ters, argued  that  the  connection  is  loose  between  the 
first  two  chapters  of  Matthew  and  the  third  chapter.1 
It  needs  a  keen  vision  to  see  the  force  of  his  arguments, 
but  in  any  case  the  facts  of  the  case  are  against  him. 
Ch.  iii.  begins  with  the  words — "  In  those  days." 
"What  days?  The  very  form  of  the  expression  points 
to  something  preceding.  So  ch.  iv.  13  speaks  of  Jesus 
as  "  leaving  Nazareth."  But  this  has  obvious  reference 
to  ch.  ii.  23,  the  only  place  where  Nazareth  is  previ- 
ously mentioned — "  He  [Joseph]  came  and  dwelt  in 
a  city  called  Nazareth." 

It  is  futile  to  point  in  this  connection,  as  Wellhausen 
does,  to  the  genealogy  in  Luke  iii.  23/f.  as  proof  of 
separate  authorship,2  or,  with  others,  to  Matt.  xiii.  53 
or  Luke  iv.  22,  where  Jesus  is  spoken  of  by  the  people 

1  Jesus  of  Nazara,  I,  p.  82  (E.  T.).  2  Das  Evang.  Lucae,  p.  6. 


THE   GOSPEL  WITNESSES  51 

as  Joseph's  son ;  for  this  in  no  way  proves  that  the 
Evangelists  held  Jesus  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph,  which 
certainly  they  did  not.1  On  the  other  hand  in  such 
allusions  as  "  John  the  son  of  Zacharias  "  in  Luke  iii.  2, 
and  "  came  to  Nazareth,  where  he  had  been  brought 
up " — mark  the  carefully  chosen  phrase  "  brought 
up "  (reOpafifiivos),  not  "born"2 — in  ch.  iv.  13,  one 
cannot  help  seeing  clear  glances  backward  to  the  pre- 
vious narratives  (cf.  Luke  i.  5/f. ;  ii.  51). 

The  clearest  evidence,  however,  of  the  unity  of  these 
sections  in  Matthew  and  Luke  with  the  rest  of  the 
Gospels  is  found  in  their  stylistic  character.  As  re- 
spects Matthew  I  simply  quote  the  words  of  one  of  the 
latest  and  most  learned  writers  on  this  subject,  Mr.  F. 
Crawford  Burkitt,  in  his  work  on  the  Syriac  Gospels. 
He  says: 

"  The  Greek  style  of  Matthew  is  marked :  he  has 
a  fondness  for  certain  words  and  phrases,  so  that 
almost  every  passage  of  considerable  length  contains 
some  of  them.  .  .  .  When  we  come  to  Matt,  i.,  ii.,  and 
ask  ourselves  whether  these  chapters  belong  to  the  rest 
of  the  Gospel,  or  whether  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  a 
later  insertion,  we  find  that  the  internal  literary  char- 
acter is  extraordinarily  strong  in  their  favour.  The 
two  chapters  contain  no  less  than  five  of  the  Old  Testa- 

1  See  below,  pp.  99,  100. 

2  Mr.  Sweet,  in  his  book  on  The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus 
Christ,  remarks  on  the  "skilfully  chosen"  character  of  this  phrase 
(p.  195). 


52  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

merft  quotations,  accompanied  by  the  regular  Mat- 
thean  formula,1  etc.  .  .  .  We  may  say,  in  fact,  that 
if  the  Nativity  story  (Matt.  i.  18— ii.  23)  be  not  an 
integral  part  of  the  First  Gospel,  it  must  be  counted 
one  of  the  cleverest  adaptations:  a  verdict  that  is  not 
likely  to  be  passed  on  it  by  a  sane  criticism."  2 

The  case  for  the  unity  of  the  sections  in  Luke  is 
perhaps  even  stronger.  Harnack's  recent  brilliant  vin- 
dication of  the  Lucan  authorship  of  the  Third  Gospel 
turns  in  part  on  this  very  point — that  the  unmistakable 
marks  of  Luke's  Greek  style  in  the  rest  of  the  Gospel 
and  in  the  Book  of  Acts  are  found  also  in  the  first  two 
chapters.  The  argument  is  not  original  to  Prof.  Har- 
nack.  Among  recent  writers  Dr.  Plummer  has  ably 
developed  it  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Commentary  on 
Luke ;  but  Harnack  has  brought  to  it  fresh  and  weighty 
corroboration.3 

We  may,  therefore,  rest  with  confidence  in  the  view 
expressed  by  J.  Weiss  in  a  recent  article,  borne  out  by 
all  the  external  evidence,  that  "  there  never  were  forms 
of  Matthew  and  Luke  without  the  Infancy  narra- 
tives." 4 

The  genuineness  of  these  chapters  of  the  Gospels 
may  be  regarded  as  established,  but  there  remains  the 

1  Cf.  e.  g.,  outside  these  chapters,  Matt.  viii.  17;  xii.  17;  xiii.  14,  35. 

2  Evangelion  Da  Mepharreshe,  pp.  258-9. 

»  Cf .  his  Lukas  der  Arzt,  p.  73,  and  Appendix  II. 

*  Theol.  Rundschau,  1903,  p.  208  (quoted  by  Machen). 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  53 

question  of  their  integrity.  If  the  chapters  cannot  be 
excised  in  whole,  may  they  not  be  in  part?  To  a  suf- 
ficient degree,  at  least,  to  destroy  the  evidence  of  the 
Virgin  Birth?  The  method  of  mutilation  has  seldom 
been  attempted  in  Matthew  *  (the  disputed  reading  in 
ch.  i.  16  will  be  referred  to  later  2)  ;  but  it  is  attempted 
by  a  considerable  number  of  recent  scholars,3  including 
Prof.  Harnack  himself,  in  the  case  of  Luke.  Remove 
certain  verses,  it  is  ingeniously  contended,  from  Luke's 
narrative — principally  ch.  i.  34,  35,  the  verses  which 
record  Mary's  question  to  the  angel :  "  How  shall  this 
be,  seeing  I  know  not  a  man? "  and  the  angel's  answer: 
"  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power 
of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee,"  etc. — and  the 
evidence  for  the  Virgin  Birth  disappears.  The  story  be- 
comes one  of  the  promise  of  a  son,  like  the  promise  of 
Isaac,  or  Samson,  or  Samuel,  or  John  the  Baptist,  to 
be  born  in  the  ordinary  way.  So,  mirabile  dictu,  it 
turns  out  that  we  have  in  Luke  no  story  of  a  Virgin 
Birth  at  all!4 

1  On  the  theories  of  Schmiedel,  who  makes  Matt.  i.  18-25  later 
than  ch.  ii.,  and  of  Charles,  who  makes  the  genealogy  a  later  addition 
(against  him  F.  C.  Conybeare),  see  article  by  Machen  in  Princeton 
Theol.  Review,  Jan.,  1906,  p.  63. 

2  See  below,  p.  102. 

8 Thus,  e.g.,  Pfleiderer,  Schmiedel,  Usener,  Hillmann,  J.  Weiss, 
Cheyne,  Conybeare,  etc.  Other  critics,  as  Hilgenfeld,  Clemen, 
Gunkel,  and  in  part  Wernle,  Weinel,  etc.,  oppose.     See  below,  p.  56. 

4  Wellhausen  thinks  there  is  no  Virgin  Birth  in  Luke  ii.,  but  sees 
it  in  ch.  i. 


54  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

On  what  grounds,  we  naturally  ask,  is  this  omission 
of  Luke  i.  34,  35  made?  First,  it  is  emphatically  to  be 
said :  On  no  good  textual  grounds.  Here  again  the  evi- 
dence of  MSS.  and  Versions  is  decisive.  Apart  from 
a  few  various  readings,  such  as  occur  in  all  texts,  the 
chapters  in  Luke  are  vouched  for  as  coming  down  to 
us  in  their  original  form,  with  ch.  i.  34,  35  as  part  of 
them.  The  only  partial  exception  to  this  statement 
is  that,  for  ver.  34  (Mary's  question),  one  Latin  MS. 
(6),  for  an  obvious  reason,  substitutes  the  words  in  the 
first  part  of  ver.  38:  "Behold  the  handmaid  of  the 
Lord:  be  it  unto  me  according  to  thy  word."  For  the 
excision  of  ver.  35 — the  crucial  verse — there  is  no  au- 
thority at  all.  The  change,  if  made,  has  to  be  made 
wholly  on  internal  grounds — as  that  the  critic  thinks 
that  ver.  35  breaks  the  connection,  is  not  consistent 
with  the  Davidic  descent,  is  irreconcilable  with  Mary's 
after  behaviour,  etc.1  Even  so,  the  Virgin  Birth  is 
implied  in  many  ways  in  the  context;  so,  to  suit  the 
theory,  further  changes  have  to  be  made.  "  Be- 
trothed "  in  ch.  ii.  5,  has  to  be  altered  into  "  wife  " — 
a  change  which  has  some  MS.  support,2  though  the 
overwhelming  weight  of  authority  is  against  it;  above 

i  Harnack  has  ten  such  reasons. 

2 The  reading  "wife"  appears  in  two  or  three  Latin  and  one 
Syriac  MSS.,  and  with  "betrothed"  or  another  word  in  several 
others.  Nothing  would  be  seriously  affected  even  were  the  change 
into  "wife"  made,  for  Matthew,  too,  speaks  of  Joseph  as  the 
"husband"  of  Mary,  and  of  Mary  as  his  "wife"  (i.  19,  20),  when 
as  yet  they  were  only  "betrothed." 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  55 

all,  eh.  i.  27,  which  tells  how  the  angel  was  sent  "  unto 
a  virgin  betrothed  to  a  man  whose  name  was  Joseph," 
has  to  be  disposed  of — this  time  without  any  authority 
— by  deleting  the  word  "  virgin,"  which  occurs  twice, 
and  likewise  the  word  "  betrothed."  The  way  is  then 
open  for  Harnack  to  pronounce :  "  After  these  few  and 
easy  deletions,  .  .  .  the  narrative  is  smooth,  and  no- 
where presupposes  the  Virgin  Birth  " !  * 

This,  I  submit,  may  be  magnificent,  but  really  it  is  not 
war.  It  is  not  serious  criticism.  Is  any  one  so  simple 
as  to  imagine  that  these  changes  would  ever  have  been 
thought  of,  but  for  the  previous  desire  to  get  rid  of 
this  particular  feature  of  the  Virgin  Birth?  Even  then 
trouble  is  not  over,  for,  as  another  critic — Usener — is 
quick  enough  to  perceive,  if  these  deletions  are  made, 
one  would  expect  to  find  some  notice  of  a  marriage  of 
Joseph  and  Mary.  Usener,  however,  is  equal  to  the 
occasion.  It  is  naturally  as  easy  to  put  in  as  to  take 
out.  So  he  courageously  writes :  "  We  are  in  a  posi- 
tion to  infer  with  certainty "  [I  always  prick  up  my  ears 
when  one  of  these  writers  speaks  of  something  he  can 
"infer  with  certainty";  I  am  sure  it  will  be  some- 
thing peculiarly  doubtful]  "  from  Luke  ii.  5  that  in  the 
original  form  of  the  narrative  after  i.  38  stood  the  fur- 
ther statement,  hardly  to  be  dispensed  with  (even 
though  judged  inadmissible  by  the  redactor  who  inter- 

1  Cf.  his  discussion  in  Zeitschrift  filr  die  neutest.  Wissenschaft,  1891, 
pp.  5Sff. 


56  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

polated  i.  34,  35),  that  Mary  was  then  taken  to  wife 
by  Joseph,  and  that  she  conceived  by  him!  "  1  Com- 
ment on  such  criticism  is  needless. 

A  few  other  critics  think  they  can  get  rid  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  by  expunging  ver.  34,  without  sacrificing 
ver.  35;  2  Gunkel  more  justly  dismisses  all  these  in- 
terpolation theories  as  baseless.3  Dr.  Chase  says  of 
them  in  a  recent  paper:  "I  cannot  think  there  is  a 
shadow  of  justification  for  regarding  Luke  i.  34,  35  .  .  . 
as  an  addition  to  the  original  document,  inserted  either 
by  St.  Luke  himself,  or  by  some  unknown  interpolator, 
and  for  thus  eliminating  the  idea  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
from  the  genuine  Gospel.  .  .  .  The  arguments  brought 
forward  against  them  are  wholly  subjective;  and  I  hope 
that  it  is  not  arrogant  to  say  that  these  arguments  ap- 
pear to  me  both  far-fetched  and  mechanical."  4  This 
opinion  I  entirely  endorse.  How  strange  that  MSS. 
should  be  so  universally  silent  on  these  alleged  inter- 
polations; that  no  Father  of  the  Church  should  ever 
have  heard  of  them;  that  the  whole  Church  should  have 
understood  the  narrative  of  Luke  in  a  way  contrary 
to  its  real  sense!  The  thing  would  be  incredible 
enough,  if  Luke  stood  alone.  But  we  have  to  remem- 
ber that,  when  all  is  done,  it  is  only  one  of  the  narra- 
tives that  is  got  out  of  the  way.     The  narrative  of 

1  Article  "Nativity"  in  Ency.  Biblica. 

2  Thus,  e.g.,  Kattenbusch,  Weinel. 

3  Zum  religionsgeschichtlichen  Verstdndniss  des  N.  T.t  p.  68. 
*  Cambridge  Theol.  Essays,  p.  409. 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  57 

Matthew,  which  cannot  be  operated  on  in  this  fashion, 
remains  as  a  second  corroborative  witness. 

I  come  now  to  my  last  point  in  this  part  of  the  dis- 
cussion. I  am  entitled  to  assume  that  these  narratives 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  are  genuine  parts  of  their  Gospels, 
and  that  they  have  come  down  to  us  in  their  integrity. 
But  what  of  the  Gospels  themselves,  and  of  their  value 
as  witnesses  to  such  transcendent  facts?  The  Gospels, 
we  are  told,  are  late;  we  do  not  know  for  certain  who 
are  their  authors;  they  are  at  least  far  removed  from 
the  events  which  they  relate.  What  credit,  therefore, 
can  be  attached  to  them? 

The  full  answer  to  this  question  cannot  be  given 
here,  for  much  depends  on  the  internal  evidence,  which 
falls  to  be  discussed  in  a  succeeding  lecture.  Neither 
can  I  enter  into  the  intricacies  of  what  is  called  the 
Synoptical  problem;  but  I  may  endeavour  to  show 
briefly  how  the  question  stands  as  regards  external  at- 
testation, and  what  grounds  we  have  for  believing  that 
our  two  Gospels  are,  as  I  have  taken  them  to  be, 
unquestionably  genuine  documents  of  the  Apostolic 
Age. 

On  this  subject  it  will  be  generally  admitted,  I  think, 

that  we  are  in  a  better  position  for  meeting  objections 

than  we  have  been  for  a  long  time.     Of  late  years, 

as  Harnack  has  been  reminding  us,1  we  have  been  in 

1  See  the  Preface  to  his  work  on  Luke. 


58  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

a  current  moving  strongly  backward  towards  tradi- 
tion, and  there  is  coming  to  be  very  general  agreement 
among  sober-minded  scholars  that  the  first  three  Gos- 
pels lie  well  within  the  limits  of  the  Apostolic  Age, 
that  Matthew  is  at  least  older  than  Luke,  and  that  this 
Gospel  is  an  undoubtedly  genuine  composition  of  Luke 
the  physician,  the  companion  of  Paul.  And  this  is 
nearly  all  I  need  to  have  admitted  for  my  present  pur- 
pose. 

Take  first  Luke.  The  great  bulk  of  scholarship  in 
the  Church  has  never  seriously  doubted  the  tradition 
which  ascribed  the  Third  Gospel  and  the  Book  of  Acts 
to  Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul.  This  has  been  the 
view  defended  by  such  writers  as  Keim,  Beyschlag, 
Meyer,  Godet,  and  most  English  scholars,  though  it  has 
been  strongly  contested  in  the  extremer  critical  schools. 
Now  Harnack  has  thrown  his  powerful  advocacy  into 
the  same  scale  in  his  work,  LuJcas  der  Arzt,  and  the 
authorship  of  Luke  may  be  regarded  as  more  firmly 
established  to-day  than  it  has  ever  been  before.  With 
what  careful  accuracy  Luke  went  about  his  work,  we 
know  from  his  own  prologue,  ch.  i.  1-3. 

As  regards  the  date  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospel, 
more  difference  of  opinion  prevails.  Harnack,  in  his 
dating  of  the  Gospels,  puts  Mark  between  67  and  70 
a.d.,  Matthew  between  70  and  75,  and  Luke  between 
78  and  93.  But  these  dates,  in  the  opinion  of  many, 
are  still  too  late.     Luke  is  put  by  not  a  few  about  70 


THE  GOSPEL  WITNESSES  59 

a.d.  or  earlier ;  1  the  late  Prof.  Blass  put  it  as  early 
as  59  or  60.2  This  is  not  the  whole;  for  even  those 
who  give  Luke  the  later  dates  agree  that  his  Gospel  is 
based  on  documents  much  older,  and,  in  regard  to  chs. 
i.  and  ii.,  it  is  very  generally  recognised  that  the  Evan- 
gelist uses  an  earlier  Aramaic  source.  I  return  to  this 
in  next  lecture. 

The  Gospel  of  Matthew,  though  older  than  Luke,  is 
in  somewhat  different  case.  The  point  of  difficulty 
about  Matthew  is  this:  All  ancient  writers  tell  us  that 
Matthew  composed  his  Gospel  in  Hebrew,  i.  e.,  in 
Aramaic;  on  the  other  hand,  our  existing  Gospel  of 
Matthew  is  in  Greek,  and  bears  no  marks  of  being  a 
translation.  Moreover,  from  the  fact  that  the  oldest 
notice  we  have  of  the  Gospel — that  of  Papias — speaks 
of  the  work  which  Matthew  composed  under  the  name 
of  "  Logia,"  or  "  Oracles,"  many  have  concluded  that 
what  Matthew  wrote  was  not  a  Gospel  in  the  strict  sense, 
but  a  collection  of  Sayings  or  Discourses  of  the  Lord, 
and  they  are  confirmed  in  this  view  by  noticing  that 
Matthew  and  Luke  evidently  drew  from  a  common 
source  of  this  kind.  On  this  theory,  which  is  at  pres- 
ent the  prevailing  one,  our  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew 
is  not  from  Matthew's  own  pen,  but  is  based  on  Mat- 
thew's "  Logia,"  and,  along  with  this,  on  the  Gospel  of 
Mark;  the  same  is  true  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke.     The 

1  Cf .  Plummer  on  dates  for  Luke,  later  and  earlier. 

2  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  p.  35. 


60  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

point  of  this,  as  it  bears  on  our  present  discussion,  can 
be  readily  seen.  Matthew's  Gospel,  it  is  urged,  so  far  as 
it  was  based  on  Matthew's  "  Logia," — i.  e.,  was  really 
Matthew's — had  no  birth-stories;  so  far,  again,  as  it 
was  based  on  Mark,  it  had  no  birth-stories.  Chs.  i. 
and  ii.  of  our  Gospel,  therefore,  are  due  to  the  Greek 
Evangelist,  and  have  no  Apostolic  authority. 

This  is  the  case  against  the  historic  worth  of  these 
chapters,  from  the  point  of  view  of  criticism  of  the 
Gospels,  and  my  reply  to  it  is  the  very  simple  one  that, 
supposing  it  all  granted,  the  conclusion  does  not  fol- 
low. It  does  not  touch  Luke,  whose  authorship  we  do 
know;  but  it  does  not  really  touch  Matthew  either;  for 
the  Greek  Evangelist,  whoever  he  was,  was  evidently 
a  man  who  stood  in  closest  relation  with  the  Apostle 
as  coadjutor  or  disciple,1  as  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  his  Gospel  passed  ever  afterwards  as  Matthew's 
Gospel — in  any  case,  was  a  man  possessed  of  full  in- 
formation, who  wrote  with  a  strong  sense  of  respon- 
sibility, and  with  scrupulous  care  in  the  use  of  his 
materials,  as  can  be  proved  by  comparison  with  the 
corresponding  sections  in  the  other  Gospels. 

Harnack,  as  we  saw,  dates  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 

shortly  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  others, 

again,  put  it  before  that  event.     Even  so  critical  a 

writer  as  Holtzmann  put  it  about  68  a.d.  ;  2  and  the 

»Cf.  Godet,    Biblical   Studies  (N.   T.),  P-    20;    and  see  article 
"Matthew"  by  Dr.  V.  Bartlet,  in  Hastings'  Diet,  of  Bible,  III,  p.  297. 
*Cf.  Godet,  Ibid.,  p.  22. 


THE   GOSPEL  WITNESSES  61 

great  scholar  Zahn  puts  the  supposed  original  Aramaic 
Matthew,  of  which  more  immediately,  as  early  as 
6 1-6  6.  *  The  sources,  on  the  "  Logia  "  theory,  are,  of 
course,  earlier  still. 

I  have  thus  stated  the  views  currently  held;  but, 
having  made  this  explanation,  I  desire  now  to  say  for 
myself — it  is  only  due  to  myself  that  I  should  say  it — 
that  I  am  not  at  all  personally  convinced  of  the  truth  of 
this  so-called  "  Two-Source  "  theory  of  the  Gospels  of 
Matthew  and  Luke,2  and  see  much  reason  for  agreeing 
with  those,  including  Zahn,  who  think  that  the  Apos- 
tle Matthew's  connection  with  the  First  Gospel,  not 
excepting  the  first  two  chapters,  was  much  more  direct 
than  the  prevailing  theory  assumes.  I  speak  with  diffi- 
dence, and  must  not  unduly  prolong  the  discussion.  I 
would  therefore  only  in  closing  draw  attention  to  the 
following  points,  which  seem  to  me  of  much  weight: — 

1.  The  tradition  of  the  early  Church  was  that  "  the 
Gospels  containing  the  genealogies  [i.  e.,  Matthew  and 
Luke]  were  written  first,"  and  that  Matthew  was  the 
earliest  of  all.3 

1  Einleitung,  II,  p.  263. 

2  It  seems  to  me,  e.  g.,  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  Luke 
intended  in  his  prologue  to  include  the  Gospel  of  Mark  among  the 
many  attempts  at  composing  Gospels  which  his  own  better-ordered 
work  was  to  supersede.  The  difficulties  of  the  theories  of  de- 
pendence are  very  great,  and  I  prefer  to  think  of  the  Gospels  as 
drawing  from  more  or  less  common  sources,  oral  or  written,  but  as 
independently  originating. 

3  Clem,  of  Alex.,  in  Eusebius,  vi.  14;  Keim,  I,  pp.  69,  97;  Meyer, 
Matthew,  I,  p.  25;  Zahn,  Einleitung,  II,  pp.  177,  263,  322,  etc. 


62  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

2.  The  tendency  has  been  increasingly  to  recognise 
in  the  so-called  "  Logia  "  of  Matthew  a  modicum  of 
narrative  matter  as  well  as  discourses.  This  has  been 
ably  advocated  by  B.  Weiss,  Klostermann,1  and  others. 
The  "  Logia  "-Source  thus  approaches  more  nearly  to 
the  nature  of  a  Gospel. 

3.  The  testimony  of  the  ancient  Church  is  unani- 
mous as  to  the  identity  of  our  existing  Greek  Gospel 
with  the  Gospel  that  Matthew  wrote.  The  early  Fathers 
knew  no  other  Gospel  of  Matthew,  and  they  attributed 
it  unhesitatingly  to  the  Apostle.  It  follows  that,  if  an 
Aramaic  Gospel  ever  existed,  it  must,  as  Meyer  says, 
"  apart  from  the  language,  have  been,  in  contents  and 
form,  in  whole  and  in  part,  substantially  the  same  as 
our  Greek  Matthew.2 

4.  The  statement,  first  met  with  in  Papias,  that  Mat- 
thew wrote  his  Gospel  in  Hebrew,  must,  in  that  case, 
be  due  either  (1)  to  a  confusion  with  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews,  which  Papias,  no  great  judge,  may  easily, 
like  others,  have  supposed  to  be  the  original  of  our 
Gospel;  or  (2)  to  the  fact  that  Matthew  did  write  his 
Gospel  originally  in  Aramaic,  and  that  this  was  subse- 

1  Godet,  Luke,  I,  p.  44.  See  also  Salmon's  newly  published  Human 
Element  in  the  Gospels,  pp.  70,  403. 

2  Com.  on  Matt.,  I,  p.  11;  cf.  p.  44.  Westcott  says:  "All  early 
writers  agree  that  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew.  ...  At  the  same 
time  all  equally  agree  in  accepting  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  without 
noticing  the  existence  of  any  doubt  as  to  its  authenticity"  (Introd. 
to  Gospels,  pp.  223-4).     Cf.  also  Zahn,  op.  cit.,  II,  p.  259. 


THE   GOSPEL  WITNESSES  63 

quently  replaced,  by  his  own  hand,  or  that  of  another, 
by  our  Greek  Gospel.  This  is  the  view  of  Zahn,1  as  it 
was  earlier  that  of  Westcott,  and  of  others.  It  is  the 
view  which  commends  itself  to  my  own  mind.  There 
is  nothing  more  wonderful  in  Matthew  reproducing 
his  Gospel  in  Greek,  or  having  it  done  for  him,  than  in 
Calvin,  e.  g.,  publishing  his  Institutes  in  Latin  and  in 
French. 

5.  Matthew's  Gospel,  on  this  view,  may  have  been 
produced  shortly  after  60  a.d.  I  strongly  incline  also 
to  an  early  date  for  Luke.  Luke's  Gospel  was  written 
before  the  Book  of  Acts,  and  it  has  always  been  borne 
in  upon  me  that  the  latter  must  have  been  written 
before  Paul's  death,  else  there  would  surely  have  been 
somewhere  some  allusion  to  that  fact. 

If  these  conclusions  are  just,  we  find  in  them  new 
evidence  of  the  early  date,  and,  in  Matthew's  case, 
direct  Apostolic  attestation,  of  the  narratives  of  the 
Virgin  Birth. 

1  Com.  on  Matt.,  II,  pp.  259,  etc.     Cf.  Salmon,  as  above. 


LECTUBE    III 

SOURCES  OF  THE  NARRATIVES HISTORICAL   AND   INTER- 
NAL   CREDIBILITY 

In  last  lecture  I  tried  to  show  that  the  narratives  of 
the  Nativity  were  genuine  parts  of  their  respective  Gos- 
pels. To-day  I  am  to  be  engaged  in  discussing  the  ex- 
ternal and  internal  credibility  of  the  narratives  consid- 
ered in  themselves.  This  is  an  important  branch  of  the 
argument.  These  narratives  of  the  birth  of  our  Lord 
are  not,  like  the  pagan  stories  of  the  sons  of  the  gods 
to  which  they  are  sometimes  compared,  vague,  formless 
myths,  but  are  rooted  down  to  time  and  place,  under 
definite  historical  conditions,  by  reference  to  which  they 
can  be  tested.  In  Marcion's  Gospel,  to  which  I  formerly 
referred,1  Jesus  came  down  from  heaven  in  the  15th 
year  of  Tiberius;  in  our  Gospels,  He  was  born  of  a 
human  mother  in  Bethlehem,  in  the  last  days  of  Herod, 
the  King  of  Judaea.  In  this  sense  also  "  the  Word  be- 
came flesh,"  that  He  has  His  definite  place  in  the  history 
of  the  world  in  a  known  age.  He  was  born  of  a  definite 
race,  in  an  ordained  line  of  descent,  at  a  particular  point 

1  See  above,  p.  47. 
64 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  65 

of  time,  and  in  definite  circumstances,  which  give  a 
concrete  reality  to  His  appearance. 

But,  besides  this  historical  side,  our  narratives  have 
an  internal  character  by  which  their  credibility  can  be 
tested,  and  some  reliable  light  thrown  upon  their  sources. 
I  here  remind  you  only  that  internal  evidence  is  a  pow- 
erful factor  in  determining  the  trustworthiness  of  any 
narrative.  A  fabulous  or  apocryphal  narration  betrays 
its  false  character  by  many  signs — we  have  only  to 
think  of  the  grotesque  puerilities  of  the  Apocryphal 
Gospels  ■ — while  a  truthful  record  bears  in  itself  many 
subtle  indications  of  its  authentic  origin  and  essential 
credibility.  I  hope  to  make  it  clear  that  few  narratives 
sustain  a  test  of  this  kind  more  successfully  than  these 
accounts  of  the  birth  of  our  Lord. 

One  thing  and  one  only  I  feel  it  necessary  to  premise 
in  this  inquiry:  I  postulate  the  honesty  of  the  writers. 
I  recall  a  sentence  of  Godet's  at  the  end  of  the  Preface 
to  his  Commentary  on  Luke,  which  will  bear  quoting. 
"  If  I  am  asked/'  he  says,  "  with  what  scientific  or  re- 
ligious assumptions  I  have  approached  this  study  of  the 
third  Gospel,  I  reply,  with  these  two  only:  that  the 
authors  of  our  Gospels  were  men  of  good  sense  and  good 
faith."  These  are  my  assumptions  also  in  this  discus- 
sion. I  do  not  see  how  any  one  can  read  these  simple, 
straightforward  records,  and  not  feel  that  the  writers  are 
i  See  below,  pp.  85,  88-90.      • 


66  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

at  least  honest  in  their  purpose — that  they  are  faithfully- 
setting  down  what  they  themselves  believed  to  be  true, 
and  what  they  expected  their  readers  to  accept  from 
them  as  true.  They  were  not  romancers,  spinning  their 
stories  out  of  their  own  brains,  but  were  narrators,  who 
had  their  information  from  sources  which  they  believed 
to  be  credible,  and  wrote  with  a  certain  sense  of  re- 
sponsibility. Many,  I  am  aware,  go  on  an  opposite  as- 
sumption. They  credit  the  Evangelists  with  incredible 
stupidities,  and  ascribe  to  them  a  freedom  in  concoction, 
and  artful  manipulation  in  the  use  of  their  materials, 
not  readily  distinguishable  from  knavery.  Reville, 
e.  g.,  quoted  by  Godet,  thinks  that  Matthew  did  not 
even  perceive  the  incompatibility  between  the  miracu- 
lous birth  and  the  genealogy  ascribing  to  Jesus  (accord- 
ing to  him)  a  human  father ;  while  Luke  did  "  perceive 
very  clearly  the  contradiction,  nevertheless  he  writes  his 
history  as  if  it  did  not  exist."  "  In  other  words,"  as 
Godet  comments,  "  Matthew  is  more  foolish  than  false ; 
Luke  more  false  than  foolish."  1  I  hold  that,  in  the  so- 
briety which  characterises  the  Gospels  as  a  whole,  we 
have  abundant  reason  to  ascribe  to  the  Evangelists 
"  good  sense,"  and  a  serious  purpose  in  what  they 
wrote. 

I  should  like  to  press  this  point  for  a  moment  longer, 
that,  if  the  narratives  of  the  supernatural  birth  are  re- 
jected, the  real  alternative  by  which  we  are  confronted 
1  Com.  on  Luke,  I,  p.  203. 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  67 

is  that  of  deliberate  fiction — for  unconscious  myth  and 
legend,  as  we  shall  by  and  by  see,  is  here  quite  out  of 
place.  It  is  easy  to  say,  with  writers  like  Keim  and 
Lobstein,  that  the  idea  of  the  miraculous  birth  grew  up 
as  an  attempt  at  the  explanation  of  the  origin  of  so 
remarkable  a  personality  as  Jesus  was ;  but  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  it  is  not  the  bare  idea  of  the  miraculous 
birth  we  have  to  deal  with,  but  the  translation  of  that 
idea  into  long  and  detailed  narratives,  comprising,  both 
in  Matthew  and  in  Luke,  a  whole  cycle  of  connected 
incidents.  It  is  easy  to  suggest  again  that  the  Evan- 
gelists picked  up  floating  legends  which  had  already  be- 
gun to  attain  a  certain  cohesion  and  acceptance  in  the 
Church.  But  not  to  speak  of  the  difficulty  which  this 
raises  in  connection  with  the  very  different  character 
of  the  two  narratives,  it  is  directly  contradictory  of  a 
chief  point  in  the  mythical  theory,  which  is  that  the 
Church,  in  the  early  time,  had  no  knowledge  or  story  of 
a  miraculous  birth,  but  got  it  from  these  very  Gospels. 
I  think  we  may  hold  it  for  certain  that  our  two  Gospels 
are  the  sources  of  any  'public  knowledge  the  Church  ever 
had  of  the  circumstances  of  the  birth  of  Christ ;  and,  if 
the  Evangelists  did  not  obtain  their  knowledge  of  the 
incidents  they  record  from  some  reliable  authority,  there 
is  no  escape  from  the  conclusion  that  the  narratives  are, 
in  the  main,  their  own  creation.  But  this  is  an  alter- 
native from  which,  when  it  is  fairly  faced,  I  am  sure 
most  reverent  minds  will  shrink. 


68  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

This  being  premised,  let  us  look  first  at  the  historical 
setting  or  framework  of  these  narratives  of  the  Infancy. 

In  both  Evangelists,  the  date  of  Christ's  birth  is  fixed 
as  falling  shortly  before  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great,1 
which  we  know  to  have  taken  place  in  the  year  of  Eome 
750,  or  4  b.c.  Jesus  was  born,  according  to  these  nar- 
ratives, at  least  within  two  years — more  probably  within 
a  few  months — of  that  event :  say  provisionally  in  751, 
or  5  B.C. 

In  the  case  of  Luke,  however,  a  more  precise  deter- 
mination is  given,  which,  as  it  has  been,  made  the  ground 
of  serious  objection  to  the  narrative,  must  here  receive 
attention.  Luke  tells  us,  in  ch.  ii.  1  of  his  Gospel: 
"  Now  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days  " — the  days  of  the 
previous  events,  dated  under  Herod  (i.  5) — "  there 
went  out  a  decree  from  Caesar  Augustus  that  all  the 
world  [i.  e.,  the  Eoman  Empire]  should  be  enrolled,,, 
and  he  adds  in  ver.  2 :  "  This  was  the  first  enrolment 
made  when  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria."  Now  it 
happens  that  we  know  a  good  deal  incidentally  from 
other  quarters  about  this  Quirinius.  Quirinius  was 
governor  of  Syria,  and  he  did  carry  out  an  enrolment 
in  Judaea ;  but  this,  according  to  Josephus,  who  is  our 
authority  for  the  fact,  and  may  here  be  depended  on,2 
was  not  before  Herod's  death,  but  in  6  a.d.,  ten  years 

1  Matt.  ii.  1;  Luke  i.  5;  ii.  1. 

2  Antiq.,  xviii.  1.  Zahn  thinks  that  Josephus  is  here  mistaken, 
and  that  Luke  gives  the  correct  date  (Einleitung,  II,  pp.  397-8). 
Acts  v.  37  is,  however,  against  the  idea  of  a  mistake. 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  69 

later.  Here  then,  it  is  contended,  is  an  obvious  error 
on  the  part  of  the  Evangelist,  who  nnhistorically  dates 
the  governorship  of  Quirinius  and  his  census  ten  years 
before  the  actual  time.  His  story  of  the  enrolment  at 
the  birth  of  Christ,  and  so  his  whole  narrative,  is  thus 
discredited. 

In  dealing  with  an  objection  of  this  kind,  the  high 
character  of  Luke  for  conscientiousness  and  accuracy  as 
a  historian,  which  Sir  Wm.  Ramsay  has  done  so  much 
of  late  years  to  establish,  has  to  be  kept  in  mind.  Spe- 
cially in  dealing  with  governors  and  their  titles  Luke's 
minute  accuracy  is  proverbial.  A  new  instance  has  re- 
cently been  furnished  in  the  vindication  of  the  correct- 
ness of  his  mention  in  ch.  iii.  1  of  Lysanius  as  "  the 
tetrarch  of  Abylene,"  which  formerly  was  disputed.1  In 
addition,  it  was  early  pointed  out  ( 1 )  that  Luke  himself 
refers  to  this  later  census  of  6  a.d.  in  Acts  v.  37 — "  the 
enrolment,"  as  he  calls  it  2 ;  and  (2)  that  in  the  Gospel 
he  expressly  distinguishes  the  census  at  the  birth  of 
Christ  as  "  the  first  enrolment,"  in  contrast,  evidently, 
to  a  second  he  knew  of.  Whatever  blunder  Luke  per- 
petrates, therefore,  it  is  clearly  not  that  of  confusing 
these  two  enrolments.3 

1  Cf .  article  by  Dr.  Knowling  on  "  The  Birth  of  Christ "  in  Hastings' 
Diet,  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels,  I,  p.  206;  with  Schmiedel's  and 
Schurer's  admissions  noted  there. 

2  Cf.  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  in  Bethlehem,  p.  127. 

3  Schurer  acknowledges  that  Luke  knew  of  the  enrolment  in  6  a.d., 
yet  thinks  he  mistakes  it  for  one  occurring  at  the  birth  of  Christ 
{Jewish  People,  etc.,  II,  pp.  131,  143). 


70  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

The  whole  subject,  however,  took  on  a  new  aspect,  and 
Luke's  credibility  received  fresh  confirmation,  from  the 
important  discovery  of  the  German  antiquarian  scholar 
Zumpt  that  Quirinius  must  have  been  twice  governor  of 
Syria,  and  that  the  earlier  governorship  must  have  fallen 
between  4  a.d.  and  1  a.d. — a  conclusion  in  which  most 
scholars  now  acquiesce,  and  which  is  corroborated  by  a 
fragment  of  an  inscription  believed  to  relate  to  Qui- 
rinius.1 To  this  has  recently  been  added  the  discovery 
of  actual  census  papers  in  Egypt  establishing  the  fact  of 
periodical  enrolments  in  that  country,  and  creating  the 
high  probability  that  Augustus  did  ordain  periodical 
enrolments  of  his  subjects  in  the  provinces  of  the 
empire.2 

I  do  not  affirm  that  all  difficulties  are  removed  by 
these  discoveries,  for  the  date  given  for  the  first  gover- 
norship of  Quirinius  —  not  earlier  than  4  B.C.,  after 
Herod's  death — is  still  at  least  about  a  year  too  late. 
The  governor  when  Christ  was  born  cannot,  it  is  evident, 
have  been  Quirinius,  but  was  probably  his  predecessor 
Varus.  Still,  most  sensible  people  felt  that,  by  this  dis- 
covery of  Zumpt's,  the  back  of  the  objection  to  Luke  was 
broken ;  for,  even  if  the  census  was  begun  under  Varus, 
it  is  conceivable,  and  indeed  probable,  that,  owing  to 
the  troubles  which  we  know  broke  out  in  Judaea  at 

1  Cf.  Ramsay,  op.  dt.,  pp.  227-8,  273. 

2  The  details  about  the  enrolments  may  be  studied  in  Prof. 
Ramsay's  book  above  named.  For  the  general  facts,  cf.  Schurer, 
I,  pp.  351tf. 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  71 

Herod's  death,1  it  was  not  completed  till  the  time  of 
Quirinius,  with  whose  name  it  is  accordingly  officially 
connected.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  earlier  governor- 
ship of  Quirinius  was  not,  as  some,  including  Ramsay, 
have  thought,  an  ordinary,  but  an  extraordinary  one, 
which  may  have  included  this  very  matter  of  the  cen- 
sus, the  difficulty  disappears  altogether.  Even  the  par- 
ticular mode  of  conducting  the  enrolment  —  each  one 
going  to  his  own  city  2 — to  which  some  have  taken  ex- 
ception, is  entirely  consonant  with  what  we  might  expect 
in  a  subject  kingdom  like  Judgea,  where  naturally  re- 
spect would  be  paid  to  Jewish  usages  and  ideas,  as  far 
as  possible.3 

I  need  not  wait  on  the  other  objections  derived  from 
the  history  of  the  period,  as,  e.  g.,  that  drawn  from  the 
silence  of  historians  on  the  slaughter  of  the  infants  at 
Bethlehem.  The  story  connects  itself  with  the  other  in- 
cidents in  the  narrative,  and  is  in  perfect  keeping  with 
the  jealous,  crafty,  cruel  spirit  of  Herod,  and  with  his 
ready  resort  to  massacre,  as  history  discloses  it.  But  it 
would  be  too  much  to  expect  that,  with  so  many  greater 
crimes  to  record,  historians  would  deem  the  murder  of 
a  few  babes  in  Bethlehem  worthy  of  their  notice.  To 
be  perfectly  exact,  a  late  pagan  writer,  Macrobius,  does 

1  Tacitus,  Hist,  v.  9.  Cf.  Josephus,  as  above.  It  is  to  be  re- 
membered that  the  census  would  be  under  Herod  himself  as  long 
as  he  lived. 

2  Luke  ii.  3,  4. 

3  Ramsay  lays  stress  on  this, 


72  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

seem  to  allude  to  it,1  but  I  attach  no  importance  to  the 
reference. 

I  now  come  to  a  subject  which  has  always  occasioned 
a  real  difficulty — I  mean  the  two  genealogies.  These 
are  found  in  Matt.  i.  1-1 7,  and  in  Luke  iii.  23-38. 
In  Luke,  it  will  be  observed,  the  genealogy  occurs,  not 
in  the  introductory  chapters,  but  in  the  body  of  the  Gos- 
pel— a  fact  which  connects  the  one  part  with  the  other. 
I  do  not,  of  course,  enter  into  the  details  of  the  discus- 
sion, but  confine  myself  to  the  principles  involved,  so 
far  as  they  bear  on  the  credibility  of  the  chapters. 

On  two  points  there  is  very  general  agreement  with 
regard  to  these  genealogies: — 

1.  That  the  genealogies  formed  an  original  part  of  the 
Gospels.2  The  female  names  and  artificial  arrangement 
into  three  f ourteens,  along  with  grounds  of  style,3  prove 
this  for  Matthew :  the  ascending  order  of  the  genealogy 
proves  it  for  Luke.4 

2.  That  nevertheless  they  are  not  free  inventions  of 
the  Evangelists,  but  were  found  and  used  by  them.  As 
Lobstein  puts  it :  "  Our  Evangelists  evidently  found 
these  genealogies  in  older  documents."  5 

1  Cf.  Ramsay,  p.  219. 

2  Dr.  Charles  is  an  exception  in  making  the  genealogy  of  Matthew 
a  later  addition.  F.  C.  Conybeare  controverts  him  in  the  Academy, 
Dec.  8,  1894. 

3  Cf .  on  style,  Burkitt,  Evang.  da  Mepharreshe,  p.  258. 
*  Cf .  Godet,  Luke,  I,  p.  197. 

«  The  Virgin  Birth,  p.  46;  cf.  Godet,  p.  203.  Burkitt  dissents  on 
this  point  (p.  260). 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  73 

3.  A  third  point  may  be  added  in  which  most  agree, 
viz. :  that,  in  form  at  least,  the  genealogies  are  both 
genealogies  of  Joseph — not  one  of  Joseph,  and  one  of 
Mary. 

As  respects  aim,  the  object  of  Matthew  is  obviously 
to  establish  or  confirm  the  Davidic  descent  of  Jesus :  i.  e., 
the  aim  is  legal  or  theocratic.  The  genealogy  of  Luke, 
on  the  other  hand,  carries  back  the  lineage  of  Jesus  be- 
yond David  and  Abraham  to  Adam,  "  the  son  of  God  " 
- — i.  e.,  it  appears  to  give  the  natural  descent. 

Certain  preliminary  objections  need  not  detain  us, 
as  that  it  is  unlikely  that  family  genealogies  of  this  kind 
would  be  preserved.  We  are  not  without  some  evidence 
to  prove  that  they  were.  Luke  may  be  supposed  at  least 
to  know  something  of  the  customs  of  the  Jews ;  and  when 
he  speaks  of  every  one  going  "  to  his  own  city  "  for  the 
enrolment,  and  of  Joseph  going  with  Mary  to  Bethle- 
hem "  because  he  was  of  the  house  and  lineage  of 
David,"  !  he  takes  it  for  granted  that  people  did  have 
some  knowledge  of  their  tribal  and  family  descent.  That 
tribal  knowledge  was  in  certain  cases  preserved  we  see 
from  such  instances  as  Anna  the  prophetess,  who  is  de- 
scribed as  "  of  the  tribe  of  Asher,"  2  and  Paul,  who  was 
"  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin."  3  Josephus  was  able  to  give 
his  own  genealogy  as  he  "  found  it  described  in  the  pub- 

1  Luke  ii.  3,  4.  It  may  occur  to  us  that  the  genealogies  in  the 
Gospels  would  not  themselves  have  been  produced,  unless  such 
things  as  genealogies  were  known  to  exist. 

2  Ibid.,  ii.  36.  3  Phil.  iii.  5. 


74  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

lie  records  "  *  (there  were  public  records  then)  ;  and  he 
speaks  of  the  great  care  with  which  the  pedigrees  of  the 
priests  were  preserved,  not  only  in  Judaea,  but  in  Egypt, 
Babylon,  and  "  whithersoever  our  priests  are  scat- 
tered." 2  If,  however,  there  was  any  family  of  which 
careful  pedigrees  would  be  preserved,  it  would  assuredly 
be  that  of  David,  and  we  know  that,  in  some  cases  at 
least,  such  registers  existed.3  Even  in  Domitian's  time 
there  were  relatives  of  Jesus  who  were  known  to  be  of 
David's  race,  and  on  that  account  were  brought  before 
the  emperor.4 

The  real  difficulty  about  the  genealogies  is  that  which 
lies  upon  the  surface,  viz.,  that,  while  both  profess  to  be 
genealogies  of  Joseph,  they  go  entirely  apart  after 
David — one  (Matthew's)  deriving  the  descent  from 
Solomon,  the  other  (Luke's)  deriving  it  from  Nathan,5 
the  lines  only  touching  at  one  or  two  points  (e.  g., 
Zerubbabel).  Erom  Celsus  down6  this  alleged  contra- 
diction of  the  genealogies  has  been  urged  as  an  objection 
to  the  Gospels.  The  fact  of  the  divergence  is  not  ques- 
tioned ;  how  is  it  to  be  explained  ? 

One  solution,  as  I  have  hinted,  is  to  suppose  that  the 

1  Life,  i. 

2  Against  Apion,  i.  7.    Cf.  Plummer,  Luke,  p.  102;  Godet,  I,  p.  204. 
8  Cf.  Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu,  I,  pp.  265-6;  Godet,  as  above. 

«  Eusebius,  Ecc.  Hist.,  iii.  20. 

6  This  is  an  interesting  corroboration  of  the  connection  of  the 
house  of  Nathan  with  that  of  David  in  Zech.  xiii.  12  (cf.  Dalman, 
I,  p.  265). 

6  Origen,  A  gainst  Celsus,  ii.  32. 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  75 

genealogy  in  Matthew's  Gospel  is  that  of  Joseph,  and 
that  the  other,  in  Luke's  Gospel,  is  Mary's.  The  idea 
is  a  modern  one,  but  while  influential  names  may  be 
quoted  for  it,  it  has  not,  in  this  form,  generally  com- 
mended itself.  Yet  probably  in  reality,  if  not  in  form, 
as  many  also  admit,  this  explanation  comes  very  near 
the  true  one.  We  shall  see,  when  I  come  to  speak  of  the 
Davidic  descent,1  that  there  is  strong  reason  to  believe 
that  Mary  was  a  descendant  of  David,  as  well  as  Joseph ; 
that  they  were  near  relations ;  and  that  their  betrothal 
was  an  inter-tribal  one.2  This  also,  it  will  appear,  was 
the  persistent  tradition  of  the  early  Church,  though  the 
Church  did  not  directly  apply  either  of  the  genealogies 
to  Mary.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  at  a 
point  near  the  end  of  the  genealogies  the  two  lines  will 
coalesce,  and  they  probably  do  so  in  Matthan  (Matt.  i. 
15),  called  by  Luke  Matthat  (iii.  24),  two  removes 
from  Joseph.  This  view  harmonises  with  the  character 
of  Luke's  Gospel,  which  has  been  happily  described  as 
"  the  woman's  Gospel,"  3  and  in  its  opening  chapters  is 
certainly  Mary's  Gospel :  which  does  not  concern  itself, 
like  Matthew's,  with  theocratic  descent,  but,  as  already 
indicated,  traces  back  the  lineage  of  Jesus  to  Adam,  the 
father  of  the  race.  For  the  various  ways  in  which  the 
combination  of  the  two  lines  may  be  conceived  to  be 

1  See  below,  p.  104. 

2Cf.  article  "Genealogies"  in  Diet,  of  Christ  and  Gospels,  I,  p. 
639. 

3  Thus  Sanday,  Ramsay,  etc. 


76  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

effected,  I  must  refer  you  to  the  books  dealing  with  the 
subject.1  So  far  from  the  genealogies  reflecting  on  the 
credibility  of  the  narratives  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  it 
seems  to  me  more  correct  to  say,  with  Godet,  that  it  is 
really  the  peculiarity  of  Christ's  birth  which  furnishes 
the  key  to  the  striking  divergence  of  the  genealogies.2 

Leaving  these  external  questions,  I  advance  to  what 
is  the  main  subject  of  my  inquiry  to-day:  the  internal 
credibility  of  the  narratives,  and  the  light  cast  by  their 
character  and  contents  on  their  probable  sources  and 
origin. 

There  is  one  fact  about  these  narratives  to  which  I 
would,  at  the  outset,  solicit  your  careful  attention.  It  is 
that,  in  each  of  the  Gospels,  the  cycle  of  incidents  goes 
together  as  a  whole.  Beyschlag,  as  I  remarked  before, 
in  his  poetic  way,  thought  he  could  pick  and  choose  in 
these  birth-narratives.  He  would  retain  the  birth  at 
Bethlehem,  the  pious  shepherds,  the  visit  of  the  astrolo- 
gers to  Christ's  cradle — most  of  the  accessories  of  the 
narratives,  in  short,  without  the  fact  round  which  they 
all  gather,  the  Virgin  Birth  itself.  But,  as  every  one 
else  admits,  this  attempt  to  save  portions  of  the  nar- 
ratives as  historical,  while  rejecting  their  most  essential 
feature,  is  an  impossible  one.  The  nucleus  of  the  nar- 
rative— the  fact  which  dominates  all  the  rest — is,  in 

iCf.  Lord  Hervey  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible;  Andrews,  Life  of  Our 
Lord;  Godet,  etc.     See  further  below,  pp.  104-5. 
2  Godet,  I,  pp.  201,  204. 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  77 

each  case,  the  conception  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Vir- 
gin Birth.  The  centre  of  the  story  in  Luke,  e.  g.,  is  pre- 
cisely that  verse,  ch.  i.  35,  which  Harnack  and  others 
would  expunge—"  The  Holy  Ghost  [lit.  "  Holy  Spirit," 
no  article  is  used]  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power 
of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee ;  wherefore  also 
that  which  is  to  be  born  shall  be  called  holy,  the  Son  of 
God."  With  this  the  other  incidents  are  connected  in 
inseparable  relation.  The  story  of  Zacharias  and  Elisa- 
beth leads  up  to  the  Annunciation  to  Mary;  the  birth 
of  the  forerunner  prepares  for  that  of  Jesus;  the  shep- 
herds are  guided  to  the  manger  by  the  songs  of  the  an- 
gels; Simeon  and  Anna  in  the  temple  hail  the  Lord's 
Christ.  It  is  not  otherwise  in  Matthew.  Here  again 
the  central  fact  is  the  miraculous  birth  at  Bethlehem. 
The  Magi  are  led  by  a  star  to  Christ's  cradle,  and  the 
subsequent  events  form  a  series  arising  out  of  that  visit 
With  this  is  to  be  taken  the  other  fact,  commented  on  in 
last  lecture,  that  the  two  narratives,  while  independent, 
are  not  contradictory,  but  are  really  complementary. 
Matthew  supplements  Luke's  silence  about  Joseph  and 
the  removal  of  his  difficulties;  Luke  supplies  what  is 
lacking  in  Matthew  about  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of 
Mary.  We  must  treat  the  series  of  incidents  in  both 
Gospels,  therefore,  together;  they  stand  or* fall  as  one 
set  of  facts. 

But  let  us  look  more  closely  at  these  narratives — par- 
ticularly at  the  singularly  beautiful  and  delicately  told 


78  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

story  in  Luke's  Gospel.  Luke  incorporates  these  nar- 
ratives of  the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist  and  the  birth  of 
Jesus;  but  where  did  he  get  them?  Now  there  are 
two  features  in  these  narratives  which  practically  all 
scholars  are  agreed  in  recognising.  (1)  They  are  in 
Greek — and  in  Luke's  Greek;  and  (2),  they  exhibit 
unmistakable  marks  of  dependence  on  a  Hebraic  or 
Aramaic  source.  It  may  be  regarded  as  demonstrated 
that  the  narratives  bear  the  marks  of  Luke's  distinctive 
style.1  The  contrast  is  not  less  evident  between  the  pure 
Greek  of  Luke's  Preface  (vers.  1-4) — one  of  the  finest 
pieces  of  Greek  in  the  New  Testament — and  the  sections 
that  follow,  steeped  in  Hebraic  sentiment  and  idiom.2 
Prof.  Harnack  acknowledges  the  fact,  though  he 
strangely  thinks  it  may  be  due  to  a  deliberate  change  of 
style  in  Luke  himself.3  Plainly  Luke  is  using  in  these 
sections  an  Aramaic  source ;  the  only  question  that  can 
arise  is,  whether  this  source  was  oral  or  written.  Prof. 
Ramsay  inclines  to  the  former  view ;  most  scholars  pre- 
fer the  latter.  Gunkel,  who  has  a  good  feeling  in  these 
matters,  says  the  chapters  are  probably  a  translation 
from  a  Hebrew  original,  described  by  him  as  "  a  gen- 
uine document  of  a  very  primitive  Jewish-Christian 
type."  4 

1  Cf.  Harnack,  Lukas  der  Arzt,  p.  73  and  Appendix. 
*Cf.  Sanday,  Critical  Questions,  pp.  129-35;  Plummer,  Luke,  p. 
7;  Swete,  Apostles'  Creed,  pp.  49-50;  Ramsay,  etc. 
>  Op.  cit.,  p.  73. 
4  Zum  religionsgeschichtlichen  Verstandniss  des  N.  T.,  p.  67. 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  79 

With  this  view  of  the  Aramaic  character  of  the  source, 
the  contents  of  the  sections  entirely  agree.  We  are 
transported  in  these  narratives  into  the  midst  of  a  purely 
Hebrew  circle — of  that  holy  company  "  that  were  look- 
ing for  the  redemption  in  Jerusalem  "  *  —  and  never 
once  throughout  the  chapters  do  we  leave  the  Old  Testa- 
ment standpoint,  or  transcend  the  Old  Testament  hori- 
zon. We  see  the  aged  pair,  Zacharias  and  Elisabeth, 
both  of  Aaronic  descent,  "  walking  in  all  the  command- 
ments and  ordinances  of  the  Lord  blameless" ;  2  we  wait 
with  Zacharias  at  his  altar;  we  hear  the  promise  of  a 
son,  on  whom,  as  in  the  case  of  Samson,  the  Nazirite  vow 
is  to  be  laid;  we  are  greeted  with  the  last  refrain  of 
Old  Testament  prophecy  in  Malachi :  2  we  listen  to  holy 
canticles  in  the  old  style  of  Hebrew  parallelism;  the 
long-sealed  fountain  of  prophetic  inspiration  begins 
again  to  flow.  But  the  language  used,  the  salvation 
looked  for,  the  predictions  given,  are  all  genuinely  Old 
Testament  in  character  and  outlook.  "  When  we  look  at 
the  Benedictus  at  all  closely,"  says  Dr.  Sanday,  "  how 
intensely  Jewish  it  is !  And  not  only  is  it  Jewish,  but 
Jewish  of  the  period  to  which  it  is  ascribed."  4  It 
would,  indeed,  be  strange  if  a  Hellenist  like  Luke,  im- 
bued with  the  universalistic  spirit  of  Paul,  and  writing 
a  Gospel  intended  to  bring  out  the  universal  note  in 
Christ's  sayings  and  acts,  could,  from  amidst  his  Gen- 

i  Luke  ii.  38.  «  Ibid.,  i.  6.  *Ibid.f  i.  17. 

*  Critical  Questions,  p.  132. 


80  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

tile  surroundings,  throw  himself  thus  completely  back 
into  the  atmosphere,  thoughts,  and  speech  of  a  purely 
Old  Testament  circle,  at  a  time  when  Christ  had  not 
yet  come,  but  was  only  hoped  for,  or  rather  at  the  transi- 
tion-point when  the  day-spring  from  on  high  was  just 
breaking,  and  its  first  beams  were  illuminating  the  sky ! 
All  this  attests  that  we  are  here  dealing  with  material 
of  a  very  primitive  kind,  reproduced  by  Luke,  yet  pre- 
served by  him  with  its  essential  characters  unchanged.1 
It  is  fitting  that  I  should  refer  in  this  connection  to 
the  interesting  studies  of  Dr.  Briggs,  who  finds  in  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  evidence  of  the  existence  of  Hebrew 
poems — probably  of  "  two  original  poems  " — giving  ac- 
counts of  the  birth  and  infancy  of  Jesus.  Matt.  i.  20— 
21  is  taken  from  a  longer  poem.  "  This  piece  has  the 
parallelisms  and  measures  of  Hebrew  poetry."  The 
story  of  Luke,  he  notices,  "  is  composed  of  a  number  of 
pieces  of  poetry  " — seven  in  all.  "  These  seven  pieces 
of  poetry  are  a  series  of  annunciations  and  of  songs  of 
gratitude  and  praise,  all  with  marked  characteristics  of 
Hebrew  poetry,  not  only  in  form,  but  in  the  style  and 
substance  of  the  thought."  Six  of  them  are  trimeters ; 
"  one  of  them  is  a  pentameter,  like  the  pentameter  pre- 
served in  Matthew."    "  So  far  as  Luke  is  concerned,  his 

*  Principal  Adeney  says  in  his  essay  on  The  Virgin  Birth:  "The 
infancy  narrative  in  this  Gospel  is  extremely  Jewish.  Even  the 
language  at  this  part  is  very  Hebraistic — a  sign  that  the  Evangelist 
was  drawing  on  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  sources,  and  that  without  very 
materially  altering  them."     ("  Essays  for  the  Times,"  No.  xi,  p.  24.) 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  81 

story  of  the  Infancy  is  nothing  more  than  a  prose  setting 
for  these  seven  poetic  pieces  given  by  him."  He  says : 
"  Making  every  allowance  for  the  poetic  form,  style,  and 
conception,  these  poems  are  sources  of  the  highest  value, 
and  of  the  first  degree  of  historic  importance  " ;  and, 
generally,  he  claims  for  this  Gospel  of  the  Infancy: 
"  There  is  no  sound  reason  to  reject  it  as  merely 
legendary  in  its  material.  There  is  every  reason  to  ac- 
cept it  as  giving  a  valid  and  essentially  historic  account 
of  the  Infancy  of  our  Lord,  so  far  as  it  could  be  reason- 
ably expected  in  poetic  forms."  1  I  am  not  competent 
to  judge  of  Dr.  Briggs's  metrical  theories,  but  his  in- 
vestigations afford  at  least  strong  corroboration  of  the 
Hebraic  character  of  this  source  as  a  whole — not  only  of 
its  poetic  parts,  but  of  its  prose  portions  as  well.  It 
will  be  observed  that  Matthew  as  well  as  Luke  is  in- 
volved in  Dr.  Briggs's  investigations,  and  other  scholars 
have  pointed  out  indications  of  the  Hebraic  form  of 
Matthew's  narrative. 

There  are  two  ways,  I  would  now  ask  you  to  consider, 
in  which  this  fact  we  have  ascertained  of  the  Hebraic 
and  primitive  character  of  these  early  sections  in  Mat- 
thew and  Luke  bears  on  their  historic  trustworthiness. 
One  is  that  they  give  us  very  early,  and  to  all  appear- 
ance first-hand,  evidence  of  the  events  to  which  they  re- 
late. I  shall  come  back  to  that  immediately.  The  other 
is,  that  they  leave  no  place  for  a  late  and  legendary 
1  New  Light  on  the  Life  of  Christ,  pp.  161-6. 


82  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

origin  of  the  idea  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  I  do  not  wish 
to  anticipate,  but  there  is  a  point  here  which  I  should 
like  for  a  moment  to  emphasise.  With  all  that  is  said 
of  the  facility  with  which  legend  can  grow  up,  it  is  very 
certain — I  should  say  almost  demonstrable — that  this 
is  not  a  kind  of  legend  which  would  naturally  grow  up 
on  Jewish  soil,  especially  in  such  intensely  Hebraic  sur- 
roundings as  are  here  pictured.  The  idea  of  a  Virgin 
Birth,  as  has  often  been  shown,  and  will  hereafter  be 
proved  more  in  detail,1  was  one  entirely  foreign  to  Jew- 
ish habits  of  thought,  which  honoured  marriage,  and  set 
no  premium  on  virginity.  Hence,  indeed,  the  zeal  of 
most  recent  theorists  to  seek  for  it  a  Gentile  origin.2 
There  was  no  precedent  for  such  an  idea  in  the  Old 
Testament.  The  children  of  promise  there  —  Isaac, 
Samson,  Samuel — were  in  every  case  children  born  in 
marriage.  The  prophecy  in  Is.  vii.  14,  as  we  shall  see, 
could  not,  despite  Lobstein  and  Harnack,  suggest  it; 
for,  apart  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  Hebrew  word,  of 
which  more  hereafter,  it  is  certain  that  no  Jew  of  that 
age  applied  the  prophecy  to  the  Messiah.  The  very 
severity  of  the  Hebrew  idea  of  God  was  unfavourable  to 
the  notion  of  a  divine  paternity.  How  then  could  this 
conception  originate  in  the  bosom  of  the  simple,  pious- 
minded,  conservative  community  that  gave  rise  to  these 
stories  and  hymns,  saturated  with  the  purest  Old  Testa- 
ment feelings  and  hopes?  Even  if  the  narrators  had 
1  See  below,  pp.  125-G.  2  See  below,  pp.  125,  132. 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  83 

been  ever  so  much  given  to  romancing,  this  was  not  the 
kind  of  romancing  they  would  have  indulged  in.  On 
this  ground  also  we  are  compelled  to  deal  with  the  nar- 
ratives on  the  assumption  of  the  honesty  of  the  nar- 
rators, and  of  their  belief  that  what  they  recorded  was 
true. 

And  so  I  am  brought  to  the  last  important  stage  in  the 
present  part  of  my  argument.  We  have  seen  that  these 
narratives  bear  in  themselves  the  signature  of  their 
primitive  and  genuine  character.  But  now  one  thing  is 
certain.  If  the  stories  are  true  at  all,  there  are,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case,  only  two  persons  from  whom  they 
can  ultimately  have  come  in  their  details,  viz. :  Joseph 
and  Mary  themselves.  This  also,  as  we  saw  before,  is 
precisely  the  conclusion  to  which  we  are  pointed  by  the 
internal  structure  of  the  narratives.  When  we  look 
carefully  into  the  two  narratives,  we  find  that  they  have 
just  this  character — that  this,  indeed,  is  the  most  re- 
markable thing  about  them — that  the  narrative  of  Mat- 
thew is  given  throughout  from  the  standpoint  of  Joseph, 
and  the  narrative  of  Luke  from  the  standpoint  of  Mary. 
This  is  undoubtedly  the  fact  about  the  two  histories, 
explain  it  as  we  may.  Eomancists  could  hardly  have 
kept  up  so  perfect  a  distinction ;  yet,  apparently  without 
design,  it  is  kept  up  here.  In  Matthew,  as  I  showed,  the 
whole  story  is  concerned  with  Joseph.  It  tells  of  his 
shock  at  the  discovery  that  Mary  was  about  to  become  a 


84  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

mother ;  of  his  perplexity  and  proposed  action,  of  which 
no  one  could  have  known  but  himself ;  of  the  divine  dis- 
closure to  him  in  a  dream ;  of  his  taking  Mary  to  wife, 
his  naming  of  Jesus,  and  his  subsequent  conduct  as  the 
guardian  of  mother  and  child.  Mary,  as  I  said,  has  no 
independent  place  in  the  narrative.  She  appears  only 
in  her  relation  to  Joseph,  and  as  the  mother  of  the  babe 
whose  protector  Joseph  became.  Even  the  birth  of  Jesus 
is  not  narrated  in  an  independent  sentence,  but  in  subor- 
dination to  the  statement  of  Joseph's  relation  to  his 
wife.1  In  the  incidents  that  follow  Joseph  takes  the 
lead.  This  is  the  more  striking  that,  quite  evidently,  it 
is  the  miraculous  conception  and  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ 
which  is  the  pivot  on  which  the  whole  narrative  turns. 

In  Luke's  narrative,  as  I  likewise  before  indicated, 
these  relations  are  precisely  reversed.  Joseph  does  not 
appear  in  Luke's  story  except  incidentally,  as  the  person 
to  whom  Mary  is  betrothed.  The  story,  led  up  to  by  the 
account  of  Zacharias  and  Elisabeth,  is  all  about  Mary. 
We  are  told  of  the  Annunciation  to  Mary  by  the  angel, 
and  of  her  reply;  of  her  visit  to  her  kinswoman  Elisa- 
beth, and  of  what  passed  between  the  friends ;  of  Mary's 
Magnificat;  of  the  birth  of  Jesus;  of  the  visit  of  the 
shepherds ;  of  how  Mary  "  kept  all  these  things,  and 
pondered  them  in  her  heart."  2  It  is  she  that  Simeon 
specially  addresses  in  the  Temple ;  she  who,  when  Jesus 
is  found  in  the  Temple,  with  the  doctors,  speaks  the  gen- 
i  Matt.  i.  24,  25.  2  Luke  ii.  19. 


SOURCES   AND  CREDIBILITY  85 

tie  word  which  drew  from  Him  the  answer :  "  Wist  ye 
not  that  I  must  he  in  my  Father's  house  ? "  *  And 
again  it  is  recorded  that  she  "  kept  all  these  sayings  in 
her  heart."  2  In  these  chapters,  in  short,  we  seem  look- 
ing through  a  glass  into  Mary's  very  heart.  Her  purity 
of  soul,  her  delicate  reserve,  her  inspired  exultation,  her 
patient  committing  of  herself  into  God's  hands  to  vin- 
dicate her  honour,  her  deep,  brooding,  thoughtful  spirit 
— how  truth-like  and  worthy  of  the  fact  is  the  whole 
picture ;  how  free  from  everything  sensational ;  how  far 
removed  from  the  legendary  Mary  of  the  Apocryphal 
Gospels,  pictured  as  dancing  when  three  years  old  on  the 
steps  of  the  Temple,  fed  by  the  hand  of  an  angel  till  she 
was  twelve,  etc. 

What  shall  we  say  is  the  explanation  of  all  this? 
What  explanation  can  be  given  but  the  one  which  most 
believing  scholars — practically  all  who  do  not  dispute 
the  good  faith  of  the  records — do  give :  that  Joseph  him- 
self is  ultimately  the  informant  in  the  one  case,  and 
Mary  in  the  other  ?  The  narratives,  on  this  view,  come 
from  the  holy  circle  itself:  secondary  agencies  may  be 
considered  after.  This  accounts  for  their  circumstan- 
tiality, their  delicate  reserve,  their  primitive  standpoint, 
their  literary  peculiarities,  as  nothing  else  can  do. 

Is  not  this,  I  might  further  ask,  exactly  what  we 
might  expect  on  the  supposition  that  these  things  did 
actually  happen?  Consider.  Every  one,  I  think,  will 
1  Luke  ii,  49.  2  Ibid.,  ii.  51. 


86  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

feel  that,  while  these  were  things  that  would  not,  and 
could  not,  be  gossiped  about,  but  that  would  be  long  kept 
by  Mary  as  a  secret  buried  deep  in  her  own  heart;  yet 
both  she  and  Joseph  must  have  realised  that  they  were 
not  things  that  could  be  treated  as  entirely  private  to 
themselves — that  it  was  necessary,  both  for  the  clearing 
of  Mary's  honour  and  for  the  right  understanding  of 
Jesus  Himself,  that  the  facts  of  His  birth  should  at 
some  time  become  known — and  that  a  sacred  responsi- 
bility rested  on  them  both  to  see  that  the  knowledge  of 
events  so  transcendent  did  not  pass  away  with  them- 
selves. This  could  only  be  done  by  solemn  deposition, 
or  other  form  of  communication  made  to  some  person 
or  persons  in  their  lifetime.  For  myself,  I  confess  I 
cannot  form  a  conception  of  how  these  narratives  in  the 
Gospels  obtained  the  unchallenged  reception  in  the 
Church  they  did,  unless  it  was  understood  or  believed 
that  such  was  their  origin. 

Against  this  account  of  the  sources  and  credibility  of 
the  history  objections  drawn  from  the  supernatural 
character  of  the  occurrences  seem  to  me  vain.  The  In- 
carnation, in  whatever  way  we  conceive  of  it,  is  a  stu- 
pendous miracle — "  the  mystery  of  godliness  " — and 
the  astonishing  thing  would  have  been,  had  such  an 
event  taken  place,  and  nothing  of  the  nature  of  miracle 
been  associated  with  it. 

The  narratives,  I  grant,  are  steeped  in  the  super- 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  87 

natural.  But  look  to  the  form  of  that  supernatural.  It 
is  not  the  supernatural  of  the  puerile,  extravagant  kind 
you  find  in  the  Apocryphal  Gospels  of  the  Infancy, 
or  in  the  birth-stories  of  the  Buddha — late  products  of 
imagination.  It  is  the  kind  of  supernatural  which  con- 
nects the  Old  Testament  with  the  New — a  revival  of  the 
spirit  of  prophecy,  sacred  hymns,  men  and  women  filled 
with  the  Holy  Spirit,  monitions  by  dreams,  angelic  ap- 
pearances. Oh,  but,  you  say,  these  very  things — espe- 
cially the  angels  —  are  sufficient  to  relegate  the  nar- 
ratives to  the  domain  of  poetry  and  fiction.  Is  it  so? 
The  presence  of  these  elements  does  imply  that  there  is 
a  divine  idealism  in  the  story.  It  does  imply  that  there 
exists  a  spiritual  world  which  may  manifest  itself.  It 
does  imply  that  the  shepherds  on  that  first  memorable 
Christmas  night  were  not  dreaming  when  they  heard 
those  celestial  voices  telling  them  of  Christ's  birth,  and 
singing,  "  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest." 1  But,  se- 
riously, is  this  incredible  in  the  beginning  of  the  life 
of  Him  who  said :  "  Thinkest  thou  that  I  cannot  be- 
seech my  Father,  and  He  shall  even  now  send  me  more 
than  twelve  legions  of  angels  ?  "  2  Is  it  not  too  much 
to  find  a  world,  which  at  this  hour  is  busily  engaged  in 
investigating  scientifically  the  border-region  between  the 
natural  and  the  supernatural — instituting  "  Psychical 
Research  "  societies,  and  the  like,  to  explore  and  test 
the  phenomena  of  apparitions,  of  telepathy,  of  spiritism 
1  Luke  ii.  14.  2  Matt.  xxvi.  53. 


88  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

— too  much  to  find  it  asking  us  to  reject  a  narrative  of 
the  greatest  supernatural  event  of  time,  because  it  re- 
cords that,  for  a  few  brief  moments,  the  veil  was  drawn 
aside,  and  that  heavenly  forms  were  seen,  and  voices 
from  heaven  heard,  by  men  on  earth  ? 

When  this  fundamental  objection  is  set  aside — and  I 
grant  that  the  root  of  the  matter  is  here — not  much 
difficulty  of  a  serious  kind  remains.  Why,  it  is  asked, 
knowing  all  she  did,  did  Mary  wonder  at  His  wisdom  ? 
Why  did  she  join  His  friends,  when  they  sought  to  lay 
hold  of  Him,  because  they  thought  He  was  beside  Him- 
self ?  It  is  all  very  human,  if  we  only  think  of  it; 
though  it  is  not  said,  and  is  hardly  to  be  believed,  that 
Mary  joined  in  the  thought  that  Jesus  was  mad.1  She 
may  well  have  had  other  reasons  for  being  there,  and, 
in  her  maternal  anxiety  for  His  safety,  for  trying  to 
get  Him  to  come  away.1  The  difficulty,  remember,  is 
the  same,  if  we  suppose  Mary  to  have  believed  in  the 
divine  mission  of  her  Son  at  all,  which  I  think  we  may 
assume  beyond  question  that  she  did.  Who  ever  said 
of  Mary,  as  it  is  said  of  the  brethren  of  Christ — "  Nei- 
ther did  His  mother  believe  in  Him  "  ? 

I  have  just  spoken  of  the  contrast  between  the  super- 
naturalism  of  the  Gospels,  and  the  false,  tinselly  super- 
naturalism  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels.  A  word  may  be 
said  on  these  in  closing,  as  showing  in  the  clearest  way 

1  Mark  iii.  21,  31.  John's  Gospel  shows  that  Mary  had  a  belief 
in  Christ's  supernatural  powers  from  the  beginning  (ii.  3-5).  See 
below,  p.  112. 


SOURCES  AND  CREDIBILITY  89 

the  difference  between  a  true  and  a  merely  legendary 
history.  Here  is  seen  at  a  glance  what  the  legendary 
spirit  can  do,  when  it  takes  up  work  like  this,  even  with 
stories  like  those  of  our  Gospels  as  models  to  go  upon. 
The  chaste  delicacy,  the  reserve,  the  long  thirty  years' 
silence,  broken  only  by  one  incident,  the  restraint  and 
sobriety  of  tone,  of  the  canonical  Gospels — all  is  gone. 
Instead  you  are  in  the  midst  of  prodigies  of  the  crudest 
and  most  puerile  kind.  As  I  have  written  about  these 
elsewhere :  "  Time,  place,  propriety,  even  ordinary  con- 
sistency, are  recklessly  disregarded.  Jesus  has  and  exer- 
cises from  His  cradle  all  divine  powers — is  omniscient, 
omnipotent,  etc. — yet  plays  with  children  in  the  street, 
and  amuses  Himself  by  making  pools  of  water  and 
moulding  clay  sparrows.  When  challenged  for  break- 
ing the  Sabbath,  He  claps  His  hands,  and  the  sparrows 
fly  away.  He  is  the  terror  of  the  place  in  which  He  re- 
sides. If  man  or  boy  offends,  injures,  or  contradicts 
Him,  He  smites  the  offender  dead,  or  otherwise  avenges 
Himself.  He  confounds  His  teachers,  and  instructs 
them  in  the  mysteries  of  the  Hebrew  letters.  When  His 
pitcher  breaks,  He  carries  home  the  water  in  His  lap. 
He  aids  Joseph  in  his  carpentry  by  lengthening  or 
shortening  the  pieces  of  wood  at  pleasure."  *     Look  on 

1  Apocryphal  Writings  of  the  N.  T.  ("Temple"  Series),  p.  xii. 
Cf.  Ignatius  (Eph.  19)  on  the  star  at  Christ's  birth.  "  A  star  shone 
forth  in  heaven  above  all  the  other  stars,  the  light  of  which  was 
inexpressible,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  stars,  with  the  sun  and  moon, 
formed  a  chorus,"  etc. 


90  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

this  picture  and  on  that,  and  the  proof  of  the  veri- 
similitude of  our  Gospels  will  be  nearly  complete ! 

Why  is  there  nothing  of  all  this  puerility  in  the  Gos- 
pel narratives  ?  Why  no  attempt  to  fill  up  the  vacuum 
of  the  long  period  of  Christ's  boyhood  and  early  life  \ 
Is  it  not  simply  because  the  truth  was  already  there  to 
forestall  the  error,  and  check  its  entrance  ?  To  adapt  a 
phrase  of  Sabatier's,  used  by  him  for  a  different  pur- 
pose, they  "  had  something  better."  The  ground  was 
already  occupied :  weeds  had  no  room  to  grow. 


LECTUEE    IV 

THE    BIRTH-NARRATIVES    AND    THE    REMAINING    LITERA- 
TURE   OF    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT ALLEGED 

SILENCE    OF  THE  NEW   TESTAMENT 

I  come  now  to  deal  with  an  objection  to  the  credi- 
bility of  the  narratives  of  the  Virgin  Birth  which  per- 
haps weighs  more  with  many  minds  than  any  I  have 
yet  touched — I  mean  the  alleged  silence  of  the  rest  of 
the  New  Testament  with  regard  to  this  mystery  of  our 
Lord's  earthly  origin.  Why,  it  is  asked,  if  the  miracu- 
lous birth  is  a  fact  pertaining  to  the  essence  of  the  Gos- 
pel, do  we  never  hear  any  more  about  it  ?  Matthew  and 
Luke  themselves  are  silent  about  it  after  the  first  chap- 
ters; the  other  Gospels,  Mark's  and  John's,  are  devoid 
of  all  trace  of  it ;  there  is  no  whisper  of  it  in  the  Book 
of  Acts;  Paul  and  Peter,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
the  Book  of  Revelation,  all  are  silent  about  it.  More 
even  than  this — I  am  stating  the  case  at  present  for  the 
opponent — there  are  many  things  in  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles  which  look  in  an  opposite  direction.  Jesus  is 
freely  spoken  of  as  the  son  of  Joseph ;  the  genealogies 
manifestly  go  on  this  assumption;  the  Davidic  descent 

91 


92  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

depends  on  Joseph's  parentage,  etc.  It  was  necessary, 
Paul  and  the  other  Apostles  tell  us,  that  Jesus  should 
die;  necessary  that  He  should  rise  again;  but  there  is 
no  hint  that  it  was  necessary  that  He  should  be  born  as 
the  Gospels  say  He  was. 

This,  one  must  confess,  is  a  formidable  indictment 
— to  look  at.  It  may,  perhaps,  not  appear  quite  so  for- 
midable when  we  take  it  to  pieces,  and  reduce  it  to 
its  proper  dimensions.  It  may  even  be  found  that  there 
are  elements  in  it  which,  properly  regarded,  turn  round 
into  a  confirmation  of  our  view. 

One  important  question  I  should  like  the  objector  to 
face  at  the  outset  is:  What  are  we  entitled  to  expect 
in  the  way  of  mention  of  this  event  by  the  sacred  writ- 
ers ?  Without  discussing  the  opinions  of  others,  let  me 
briefly  state  how  the  case  presents  itself  to  my  own 
mind. 

Supposing,  then,  the  fact  to  be  true,  exactly  as  re- 
lated, how  far,  or  how  quickly,  would  the  knowledge  of 
it  be  likely  to  travel  ?  Who  knew  of  it  to  begin  with  ? 
Here,  let  me  say,  I  am  not  sure  that  we  are  right  in 
assuming  that  nothing  was  known  in  the  circles  im- 
mediately about  Jesus  of  at  least  some  of  the  wonders 
connected  with  His  birth.  Joseph  and  Mary,  of  course, 
alone  knew  the  facts  fully  and  intimately.  They  alone 
could  give  authentic  and  complete  narratives  regarding 
them  such  as  we  possess.     But  we  cannot  quite  stop 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  93 

here.  There  was  at  least  one  other  who  knew  of  the 
facts  in  some  degree — I  mean  Mary's  kinswoman,  Elisa- 
beth, the  mother  of  the  Baptist.  You  remember  that, 
shortly  after  the  angel's  announcement  to  herself,  Mary 
paid  Elisabeth  a  visit  in  the  hill-country  of  Judaea, 
when  that  holy  woman  was  herself  six  months  on  the 
way  to  motherhood — mark  how  all  the  dates  in  this  nar- 
rative are  woman's  dates! — and  that  Elisabeth,  in  an 
access  of  inspiration — "  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost," 
the  text  says — greeted  Mary  as  the  blessed  among 
women,  and  mother  of  her  Lord.1  She  went  on: 
"  Blessed  is  she  that  believed ;  for  there  shall  be  a  ful- 
filment of  the  things  which  have  been  spoken  to  her 
of  the  Lord."  Mary,  moved  by  a  like  inspiration,  re- 
sponded in  the  hymn  we  call  the  Magnificat.  Here, 
then,  we  have  one  person  who  certainly  did  know  that 
Mary  was,  by  divine  power,  to  be  the  mother  of  the 
Christ;  and  we  cannot  doubt  that,  during  the  three 
months  that  these  holy  women  abode  together,  the  clos- 
est confidences  would  be  exchanged  between  them. 
Whether  Zacharias  was  admitted  to  any  share  in  these 
confidences  we  cannot  tell. 

But  we  must  widen  the  circle  a  little  further.  The 
shepherds  who  visited  the  new-born  Saviour  naturally 
knew  nothing  of  the  secret  of  His  miraculous  birth.  But 
they  had  at  any  rate  the  knowledge  that  the  child  born 
was  "  Christ  the  Lord,"  and  that  extraordinary  signs 
1  Luke  i,  43. 


94  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

attended  the  birth.  They  knew  it  as  a  birth  miraculous 
in  its  accompaniments,  if  not  in  its  origin;  and,  filled 
with  wonder,  they  did  not  refrain  from  spreading 
abroad  the  things  they  had  heard  and  seen,  or  from 
glorifying  and  praising  God  on  account  of  them.1  Fur- 
ther still,  there  was  the  holy  circle  in  Jerusalem  who 
heard  from  the  lips  of  Simeon  and  Anna  at  the  presenta- 
tion in  the  Temple  how  the  babe  born  was  "  the  Lord's 
Christ,"  "  set  for  the  falling  and  rising  up  of  many  in 
Israel."  2  These  also  knew,  and  would  not  conceal  the 
fact,  that  a  birth  in  some  sense  supernatural  had  taken 
place. 

What  may  we  infer  from  these  facts  ?  Not,  indeed, 
that  Joseph  and  Mary  divulged  to  the  world  their  per- 
sonal experiences- — we  are  expressly  told  of  Mary  that 
she  did  not 3 — but  that,  nevertheless,  it  was  known  in 
the  circle  most  intimately  associated  with  the  holy 
family,  and  by  some  outside  of  it,  that  this  birth  had 
not  been  an  ordinary  one,  and  that  divine  wonders  had 
attended  it.  It  is  unlikely  that  this  tradition  would  ever 
wholly  fail  in  the  innermost  circles  of  those  about  Jesus, 
and  later  events  would  from  time  to  time  revive  it. 

There  is  another  fact  which  should  here,  I  think,  be 
taken  into  account.  It  is  quite  certain  that,  in  the  city 
of  Nazareth,  to  which  Joseph  and  Mary  returned,  the 
mystery  of  Christ's  birth  would  not  be  publicly  talked 
about  by  them.     The  people  of  Nazareth  did  not  know 

»  Luke  ii.  20.  2  Ibid.,  ii.  25-38.  *  Ibid.,  ii.  19,  31. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  95 

— I  don't  suppose  it  ever  entered  their  minds  to  think 
of  —  Jesus  as  other  than  the  naturally  born  son  of 
Joseph  and  Mary.  It  is  hardly  possible,  however,  ac- 
cepting the  facts  as  told  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  that  one 
thing  can  have  escaped  their  notice  earlier,  viz. :  that 
Mary  was  about  to  become  a  mother  when  her  marriage 
with  Joseph  had  not  yet  taken  place.  The  fact  which 
perplexed  and  staggered  Joseph  could  hardly  be  unob- 
served by  others.  Jesus  was  actually  born  away  from 
Nazareth,  and  in  wedlock,  but  there  would  be  those  who, 
after  their  return,  would  remember  the  old  malicious 
talk;  and  we  are  perhaps  not  unjustified  in  seeing  in 
this  the  real  germ  of  those  later  Jewish  slanders  and 
Talmudic  fables  which  it  is  usual  to  trace  to  the  Gospel 
narratives — narratives  which,  when  they  came,  doubt- 
less gave  the  slander  a  more  definite  shape,  and  would 
be  interpreted  as  a  cover  for  a  dishonourable  birth.1 
14  We  be  not  born  in  fornication,"  was  perhaps  a  taunt 
that  rose  only  too  readily  to  Jewish  lips.2  If  so,  Mary 
meekly  bore  the  misconstruction  as  her  cross — part  of 
the  pain  of  the  sword  which  should  pierce  through  her 
soul  also.3 

Joseph  and  Mary  would  not  talk  of  their  peculiar 
experiences  in  Nazareth.  Would  they  be  talked  about 
to  the  other  children  in  the  house — the  brothers  and  sis- 
ters of  Jesus,  or  however  else  we  define  the  relation- 

1  Zahn  supposes  Matthew's  narrative  to  be  written  in  an  apologetic 
interest  in  view  of  these  slanders. 

2  John  viii.  41.  s  Luke  ii.  35. 


96  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

ship?  We  may  say,  I  think:  Assuredly  not.  A  more 
difficult  question  is:  Did  Jesus  Himself  know  of  this 
miracle  of  His  origin,  or  did  He  ever  hear  it  from 
Mary's  lips?  That  He  did  in  some  way — natural  or 
supernatural — know  the  essential  fact,  I  am  persuaded. 
It  seems  to  me  to  furnish  the  key  to  certain  of  His 
utterances.1  But,  if  He  did,  we  have  no  knowledge  of 
the  when,  or  where,  or  how,  of  His  becoming  acquainted 
with  it.  This  only  we  can  safely  say :  such  a  mystery 
would  form  no  part  of  His  public  preaching,  or  of  His 
private  Communications  to  His  disciples,  or  to  any,  at 
a  time  when  even  His  Messiahship  was  not  openly  dis- 
closed. After  the  resurrection  it  was  different.  Joseph 
was  dead ;  Mary  had  been  committed  to  the  care  of  the 
disciple  John.  There  was  no  longer  the  same  occasion 
for  secrecy.  But  it  would  be  rash  to  assume  that,  even 
then,  Mary  would  feel  at  liberty  to  speak  publicly  of 
the  things  that  lay  so  near  to  her  heart;  and  it  may  be 
regarded  as  certain  that,  while  she  lived,  others,  even 
if  they  knew  the  facts,  would  be  very  reticent  about 
them.  Yet  the  circle  around  her  may  well  have  been 
aware  that  there  was  a  mystery  surrounding  the  birth 
of  their  Lord,  though  they  had  not  the  precise  knowl- 
edge of  its  nature. 

How,  then,  did  the  facts  ever  become  known  ?    This 
brings  me  back  to  the  point  I  ended  with  in  last  lecture. 
I  there  indicated  that,  in  my  judgment,  both  Mary  and 
1  E.  g.,  John  viii.  14,  23,  etc. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMANT  97 

Joseph  must  have  felt  that  this  knowledge  was  a  sacred 
trust  which  they  dare  not  keep  wholly  to  themselves — 
that  it  was  due  to  Jesus,  to  Mary  herself,  and  to  the 
world,  in  some  suitable  way  to  make  it  known — that  an 
obligation,  therefore,  rested  on  them  to  provide  in  their 
lifetimes  for  the  secure  and  authentic  transmission  of 
this  knowledge.  I  likewise  endeavoured  to  show  from  the 
narratives  themselves  that  this  is  no  mere  conjecture: 
that  the  thing  was  actually  done.  How  it  was  done  we 
can  never  certainly  know.  A  favourite  theory  is,  that 
Mary's  confidant  is  to  be  sought  for  in  that  group  of 
holy  women  that  companied  with  Jesus,  and  ministered 
to  Him ;  possibly  in  Joanna,  the  wife  of  Chuza,  Herod's 
steward.1  Without,  however,  disputing  that  Joanna,  or 
some  other  of  this  circle,  may  have  been  Luke's  in- 
formant, I  would  suggest  that  the  form  of  the  records 
points  to  an  origin  much  nearer  the  beginning.  Both 
Joseph  and  Mary,  if  I  am  right  in  the  view  I  have 
taken,  must  have  felt  this  to  be  an  obligation  pressing 
on  them  from  a  very  early  period.  Joseph  might  die — 
did  die:  Mary  had  no  security  for  a  prolonged  life. 
Where,  in  these  circumstances,  shall  we  look  so  nat- 
urally for  the  origin  of  these  records  as  just  in  that  holy 
circle  in  Jerusalem  in  which  the  spirit  of  prophecy  had 
anew  manifested  itself,  and  which,  as  we  saw,  was  al- 
ready in  possession  of  some  knowledge  of  these  things 
— the  circle  to  which  Zacharias  and  Elisabeth  and 
1  Luke  viii.  2,  3.     Sanday,  Ramsay,  Gore,  etc.,  favour  this  idea. 


98  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

Simeon  and  Anna  the  prophetess  belonged?  The  nar- 
rative of  Luke,  in  particular,  in  its  primitive  and  He- 
braic character,  its  intimate  knowledge  of  the  facts 
about  Zacharias  and  the  birth  of  the  Baptist,  its  hymns, 
points  to  this  circle  as  its  source,  through  whatever 
hands  or  tongues  the  information  was  subsequently 
transmitted. 

I  have  indicated  that  I  find  a  strong  corroboration  of 
the  views  here  put  forth  in  the  unanimity  with  which 
these  Gospels,  when  they  appeared,  were  accepted  by  the 
Church.  How  account  for  the  apparently  unchallenged 
reception  of  these  narratives,  unless  there  existed  a 
preparation  for  them  in  something  already  known,  in 
an  expectancy  which  awaited  their  appearance — we  can- 
not suppose  that  nobody  knew  that  Matthew  was  writing 
a  Gospel,  or  that  Luke,  whose  inquiries  had  been  so  dili- 
gent, was  writing  a  Gospel — based  on  the  tradition  of 
something  mysterious  in  the  birth  of  Jesus,  in  a  knowl- 
edge which  the  churches  that  received  them  possessed, 
that  the  narratives  rested  on  adequate  authority,  and 
conveyed  authentic  testimony? 

We  are  now  prepared  to  deal  with  the  case  as  it  pre- 
sents itself  from  the  side  of  the  objector,  and  here,  be- 
fore considering  the  argument  from  silence,  I  would 
glance  at  the  facts  which  are  supposed  to  contradict  the 
testimony  of  the  chapters  in  our  Gospels  on  the  Virgin 
Birth. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  99 

Some  of  the  statements  made  under  this  head  are 
sufficiently  reckless.  Take,  e.  g.,  the  following  from 
Soltau  on  the  birthplace  of  Jesus :  "  Several  passages 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  also,"  says  this  writer — six 
are  named — "  now  mention  Xazareth  as  the  place  where 
Christ  was  born."  *  Of  course  there  are  no  such  pas- 
sages. The  sole  proof  is  that  Jesus  is  spoken  of  in  the 
places  cited — for  instance,  in  the  healing  of  the  lame 
man  in  Acts  iii.  6 — as  "  Jesus  of  ISTazareth."  There  is 
not  a  word  of  His  being  "  born "  there.  The  same 
writer  informs  us :  "  We  learn  from  Matthew  that  Beth- 
lehem was  the  real  native  place  of  Joseph  and  Mary."  2 
I  showed  before  that  we  learn  from  Matthew  nothing 
of  the  kind:  that  Matthew  says  nothing  whatever  of 
Joseph  and  Mary's  native  place.3  It  will  be  felt  that  a 
case  that  needs  to  be  bolstered  up  by  such  assertions  has 
not  much  substance. 

1  pass,  however,  to  instances  that  are  of  more  im- 
portance. 

1.  A  first  fact  on  which  stress  is  laid  is,  that  Joseph 
and  Mary  are  sometimes  spoken  of  in  the  Gospels  as  the 
father  and  mother  of  Jesus.  It  is  desirable  to  observe 
with  some  care  the  exact  range  of  this  evidence.  Out- 
side the  birth-narratives,  there  are  only  four  instances 
— one  in  Matthew,  one  in  Luke,   and  two  in  John.4 

yGeburtsgeschichte,  p.  10  (E.  T.,  p.  18). 

2  p.  30  (E.  T.).  3  See  above,  p.  34. 

4  Matt.  xiii.  55;  Luke  iv.  22;  John  i.  45;  vi.  42  (on  Mark,  see 
below,  p.  106). 


100  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

What  these  tell  us  is,  that  the  people  of  Nazareth, 
Bethsaida,  Capernaum  —  we  may  suppose  of  other 
places  —  spoke  of  Jesus  as  "  the  carpenter's  son," 
"  Joseph's  son,"  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of 
Joseph,"  "  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother 
we  know."  They  could  not  do  otherwise,  unless  they 
had,  what  it  is  certain  they  had  not,  a  knowledge  of  the 
actual  mystery  of  the  Lord's  birth.  But  now  note  this 
other  fact.  The  only  other  place  in  the  Gospels  besides 
these  four  where  language  of  this  kind  is  used — the  only 
place  where  it  is  not  used  by  outsiders — is  in  Luke's 
own  narrative  of  the  Infancy.  Luke,  who  has  just  nar- 
rated the  birth  from  the  Virgin,  himself  uses  this 
phraseology,  and  even  puts  it  into  the  mouth  of  Mary. 
Three  times  he  employs  the  expression,  "  the  parents  " 
or  "  His  parents,"  in  speaking  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and 
once  he  makes  Mary  say,  at  the  finding  of  Jesus  in  the 
Temple,  "  Thy  father  and  I  have  sought  thee  sorrow- 
ing." *  Here  is  the  clearest  proof  that  the  Evangelist 
did  not  regard  this  form  of  speech  as  in  the  least  conflict- 
ing with  the  fact  of  the  supernatural  birth.  How,  in- 
deed, could  it?  Joseph,  acting  on  the  monition  of  the 
angel,  had  taken  Mary  to  be  his  wife.  By  that  act,  he 
had  assumed  full  paternal  responsibilities  for  Mary's 
child.  Jesus  was  born  into  Joseph's  house,  grew  up  as 
one  of  his  family,  stood  to  him  in  every  outward  respect 
in  the  relation  of  son :  in  the  household  doubtless  called 
iLukeii.  27,  41,  43,49. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  101 

him  "  father."  Say,  if  you  will,  that  the  relation  was 
only  a  "  putative  "  one :  still  no  other  name  was  appro- 
priate to  describe  it.  To  neighbours  and  townsfolk  Jesus 
was  simply  "  Joseph's  son." 

2.  Next,  the  genealogies  are  brought  in  as  witnesses 
that  the  relation  of  Joseph  to  Jesus  was  really  a  natural 
one.  "  It  is  beyond  dispute,"  says  Lobstein,  "  that  in 
the  mind  of  both  genealogists  Jesus  is  the  son  of  Jo- 
seph." *  That  can  hardly  be  "  beyond  dispute  "  which 
is,  in  point  of  fact,  widely  disputed.  I  for  one  do  dis- 
pute it.  For  (1)  here  again  we  are  confronted  by  the 
fact  that  the  Evangelists,  who  knew  the  meaning  of 
plain  terms,  saw  no  contradiction  between  these  gene- 
alogies and  their  own  narratives  of  the  Virgin  Birth; 
indeed,  Matthew  introduces  his  genealogy  for  the  very 
purpose  of  showing  that  Jesus  had  the  legal  rights  of  a 
son  of  Joseph.  And  (2)  it  is  not  the  case  that  the 
genealogies  have  the  meaning  put  upon  them.  It  is  not 
the  genealogies  as  we  have  them  in  our  Gospels,  but  the 
genealogies  in  their  supposed  original  form — what  the 
critics  take  to  be  their  original  form — which  affirm  the 
paternity  of  Joseph.  The  Evangelists  are  very  careful 
in  the  language  they  use.  Matthew  has  a  periphrasis 
expressly  to  avoid  this  idea :  "  Jacob  begat  Joseph,  the 
husband  of  Mary,  of  whom  was  born  Jesus,  who  is 
called  Christ."  2  Luke  carefully  inserts  the  clause,  "  as 
was  supposed  " — "  being  the  son,  as  was  supposed,  of 
*  Virgin  Birth,  p.  46.  J  Matt.  i.  16. 


102  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

Joseph  "  1— a  clause  found  in  all  the  texts.  The  case 
would  be  a  little  altered,  though  not  seriously,  if  the 
reading  in  the  recently  discovered  Sinaitic  Syriac  Ver- 
sion of  Matt.  i.  16  could  be  accepted :  "  Jacob  begat 
Joseph :  Joseph,  to  whom  was  betrothed  Mary  the  Vir- 
gin, begat  Jesus,  who  is  called  the  Christ."  This  read- 
ing has  been  eagerly  seized  on  by  certain  critics ;  but,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  best  textual  scholars,  it  has  no  claim 
to  be  regarded  as  original.2  Partially  resembling  read- 
ings are  found  in  certain  Latin  codices,  and  in  one  or 
two  late  (12th  or  14th  cent.)  Greek  MSS.,3  but  even 
these  all  fail  in  the  vital  point :  "  Joseph  begat  Jesus." 
The  reading  is  not  found  in  any  early  Greek  MS. ;  it  is 
not  supported  in  the  essential  point  by  the  other  Syriac 
versions ;  4  the  texts  of  the  Latin  versions  are  in  great 
confusion.  Above  all,  the  reading  itself  is  contradictory, 
for  in  the  same  breath  in  which  it  affirms  that  "  Joseph 
begat  Jesus,"  it  names  Mary  "  the  Virgin " ;  and  it 
stands  in  connection  with  the  narrative  of  the  Virgin 
Birth  in  the  succeeding  verses.  The  leading  textual 
critics,  therefore,  as  I  say,  reject  it ;  n  the  R.  V.,  which 

1  Luke  iii.  23. 

2  Cf .  the  discussions  in  Burkitt  (see  below) ;  Gore,  Dissertations, 
pp.  192JJ.;  Wilkinson,  Hibbert  Journal,  Jan.,  1903,  etc. 

3  The  "Ferrar"  group.  See  specially  Kenyon,  Textual  Criticism, 
pp.  112ff.f  131.  *Cf.  Gore,  p.  299. 

«Cf.  Bartlet  on  Matthew  in  Hastings'  Bible  Diet.,  Ill,  p.  203;  but 
specially  Burkitt,  Evang.  da  Mepharreshe,  pp.  263-4.  Burkitt,  as 
said  before,  regards  the  genealogy  as  the  Evangelist's  own  com- 
position (p.  260). 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  103 

had  all  the  material,  except  this  one  codex,  before  it, 

does  not  so  much  as  refer  to  the  variants.     Setting  this 

reading  aside,  the  ground  vanishes  for  saying  that  the 

genealogies  affirm  a  natural  paternity  of  Joseph.     It 

appears  to  me  very  probable  that  the  genealogies  were 

originally  genealogies  of  Joseph,  not  of  Jesus ;  Luke's, 

perhaps,  a  genealogy  of  Heli ; 1   and  that  the  clauses 

connecting  the  tables  with  Jesus  are  the  work  of  the 

Evangelists  themselves.     It  is  certain,  in  any  case,  as 

shown  already,  that  the  genealogies,  if  found  by  the 

Evangelists,  were   recast  by   them   into  their   present 

form.2 

3.  This  leads  me  to  another  point  of  real  interest— 

the  question  of  Christ's  Davidic  descent.     Everywhere 

in  the  New  Testament  it  is  recognised  that  Jesus  was 

"  of  the  house  of  David,"  "  of  the  seed  of  David/'  "  of 

David's  loins,"  "  the  son  of  David."  3     This  fact,  as 

Meyer,4  Dalman,5  and  others  have  shown,  stands  fast 

quite  apart  from  the  genealogies ;  was,  indeed,  the  fact 

which  gave  occasion  for  the  genealogies.    But  just  here, 

it  is  alleged,  we  have  a  conclusive  proof  of  the  real 

paternity  of  Joseph,  since  it  is  always  through  Joseph, 

not  through  Mary,  that  the  Davidic  descent  is  traced. 

"  Eear  not,  Joseph,  thou  son  of  David,"  we  read  in 

Matt.  i.   20.     "  Betrothed  to  a  man  whose  name  was 

Joseph,  of  the  house  of  David,"  says  Luke  in  ch.  i.  27. 

1  Cf.  Godet.  "  See  above,  p.  72. 

3  Rom.  i.  3,  etc.;  Matt.  ix.  27;  xii.  23;  xxi.  9,  etc. 

*  Com.  on  Matt.,  I,  p.  61.  6  Die  Worte  Jesu,  I,  pp.  202Jf. 


104  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

The  reply  that  may  at  once  be  given  to  this  is,  that  the 
inference  cannot  be  a  correct  one,  since  it  is  the  very 
Evangelists  who  lay  this  stress  on  Jesus  being  "  of  the 
house  and  lineage  of  David  "  *  who  narrate  for  us  in 
the. same  context  the  Virgin  Birth.  It  is  directly  as 
part  of  the  narrative  of  the  Virgin  Birth  that  these 
statements  occur.  If  the  Davidic  descent  was  only 
through  Joseph,  then  "  son  of  David "  to  the  Evan- 
gelists could  mean  no  more  than  that  the  relationship  to 
Joseph  conveyed  to  Jesus  the  legal  claim  to  David's 
throne — not  that  He  was  naturally  Joseph's  son. 

But  this  now  raises  another  question :  Is  it  so  certain 
that  Jesus  derived  His  connection  with  David  only 
through  His  relationship  to  Joseph  ?  I  seriously  doubt 
it.  I  confess  I  have  never  been  able  to  read  these  birth- 
narratives  without  feeling  that  there  runs  through  them 
all  the  tacit  implication  of  Mary's  Davidic  descent, 
equally  with  Joseph's.  This  is  specially  the  case  in 
Luke's  Gospel,  which,  as  I  showed,  is,  in  these  opening 
chapters,  peculiarly  Mary's  Gospel.  No  doubt  in  Luke's 
Gospel  also  stress  is  laid  on  the  fact  that  Joseph  was 
of  the  line  of  David  (ii.  4).  But  it  is  not  to  Joseph, 
but  to  Mary,  that,  in  the  very  act  of  announcing  the 
miraculous  conception,  the  angel  says :  "  The  Lord  God 
shall  give  unto  Him  the  throne  of  His  father  David."  2 
It  is  difficult  also,  I  think,  not  to  read  this  signification 
into  the  statement  about  Joseph  going  up  to  Bethle- 
i  Luke  ii.  4,  5.  2  Ibid.,  i.  32;  cf.  ver.  69. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  105 

hem,  "  to  enrol  himself  with  Mary,  who  was  betrothed 
to  him,"  "  because  he  was  of  the  house  and  lineage  of 
David."  !  That  Mary  was  of  Davidic  descent  was,  as  I 
mentioned  formerly,  the  consistent  tradition  of  the 
Church  of  the  second  century,  as  attested  to  us  by  the 
fathers  of  the  time — Justin,  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  and 
others.2  The  view  is  one  which  leading  writers  have 
largely  favoured.3  If  accepted,  it  bears  out  the  sug- 
gestion previously  made  that  Luke's  genealogy,  while  in 
form  a  genealogy  of  Joseph,  is  in  reality  the  line  of 
descent  through  Mary,  to  whom  Joseph  was  nearly  re- 
lated. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  direct  consideration  of  the  argu- 
ment on  which  so  much  is  built  from  the  alleged  silence 
of  the  remaining  'New  Testament  books.  It  may,  on 
closer  inspection,  be  found  that  the  argument  is  not 
nearly  so  convincing  as  it  appears  at  first  sight.  That 
there  is  no  direct  mention  of  the  Virgin  Birth  may  be 
at  once  admitted.  But  mere  silence,  if  it  can  be  satis- 
factorily accounted  for,  does  not.  carry  us  far  in  proving 
either  lack  of  knowledge  or  denial;  and  indirect  indi- 
cations may  often  be  shown  to  be  present,  where  direct 

1  Luke  ii.  4,  5. 

2  See  the  evidence  in  Meyer,  Com.  on  Matt,  I,  p.  61  (Meyer  him- 
self rejects  Mary's  Davidic  descent).  Cf.  Knowling,  The  Virgin 
Birth,  pp.  32,  33. 

3  Thus,  e.  g.,  Lange,  Godet,  Ebrard,  B.  Weiss,  Edersheim,  Andrews, 
etc. 


106  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

testimony  is  wanting.  But  let  us  see  what  the  facts 
are. 

1.  I  begin  with  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  Here,  it  is 
said,  is  absolute  silence :  obvious  ignorance  of  the  Virgin 
Birth.  For,  if  Mark  had  known  of  so  remarkable  an 
occurrence,  is  it  conceivable  that  he  would  not  have 
recorded  it?  Mark,  therefore,  is  claimed  as  a  witness 
against  us. 

One  curious  circumstance  in  connection  with  this  Gos- 
pel may  be  noted  in  passing.  It  was  the  singular  con- 
tention of  the  older  Tubingen  critics — of  Baur,  Hilgen- 
feld,  and  others  of  the  school,  but  also  of  a  scholar  like 
Bleek — that  Mark  did  know  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  and 
a  point  was  even  made  of  the  fact  in  proof  that  his 
Gospel  was  later  than,  and  presupposed,  the  Gospels  of 
Matthew  and  Luke.  It  will  be  remembered  that  in 
Matthew's  Gospel  the  people  of  Nazareth  are  repre- 
sented as  saying :  "  Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  son  ?  "  * 
In  Mark  this  saying  appears  in  the  simpler  form :  "  Is 
not  this  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary  ?  "  2  Which  of 
these  forms  is  the  original  ?  Most  critics  will  say  the 
former.  How  then,  these  older  scholars  argued,  do  you 
account  for  Matthew's  form,  "  the  carpenter's  son,"  get- 
ting toned  down  into  this  milder  utterance,  "  the  car- 
penter, the  son  of  Mary  "  ?  Can  it  be  from  any  motive 
except  the  desire  to  avoid  the  impression  that  Jesus  was 
really  the  son  of  Joseph — a  precaution  the  more  neces- 
1  Matt.  xiii.  33.  2  Mark  vi.  4. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  107 

sary  that  Mark's  Gospel  does  not  contain  an  account  of 
the  birth  ?  "  Mark/'  says  Hilgenfeld,  "  does  not  tolerate 
the  paternity  of  Joseph,  even  in  the  mouth  of  the  Naza- 
renes."  1  The  argument  is  an  ingenious  illustration  of 
how  readily  facts  can  be  turned  about  to  suit  the  exigen- 
cies of  hypotheses. 

Apart  from  such  precarious  reasonings,  however,  the 
general  answer  to  the  objection  from  the  silence  of  Mark 
seems  to  be  very  simple.  Before  we  can  fairly  urge  an 
objection  of  this  kind,  we  must  ask :  What  is  the  scope 
and  design  of  the  Gospel  in  question?  Did  this  scope 
include  the  narrative  of  the  birth  of  Christ  ?  Xow  in 
the  case  of  Mark  plainly  it  did  not.  Mark  had  a  definite 
object  in  his  Gospel  —  viz. :  to  narrate  the  events  of 
Christ's  ministry  within  the  limits  of  the  common  Apos- 
tolic testimony,  which,  as  we  know,  began  with  the 
baptism  of  John,  in  Christ's  thirtieth  year,  and  ended 
with  the  ascension.2  He  therefore  gives  no  account  of 
Christ's  birth  at  all.  How  then  can  his  Gospel  be  held 
to  contradict  the  testimony  of  the  other  Gospels,  which 
do  give  circumstantial  information  on  this  subject.3 

How  much  or  how  little  Mark  knew  of  the  mysterious 

1  Cf .  Meyer  on  Mark  vi.  4. 

2Cf.  Acts  i.  22.  Mark  assuredly  knew  that  Jesus  was  born, 
though  he  does  not  mention  it. 

3  Dr.  Swete  says:  u  Much  has  been  made  of  the  silence  of  St.  Mark, 
but  the  argument  ex  silentro  was  never  more  conspicuously  misplaced ; 
it  is  puerile  to  demand  of  a  record  which  professes  to  begin  with  the 
ministry  of  the  Baptist,  that  it  shall  mention  an  event  which  pre- 
ceded the  Baptist's  birth"  (Apostles7  Creed,  p.  48). 


108  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

events  connected  with  the  birth  of  Christ,  we  cannot, 
of  course,  definitely  tell.  He  was  the  son  of  that  Mary 
of  Jerusalem  in  whose  house  the  Church  met  in  early 
days  for  worship.1  There  he  must  often  have  met  the 
mother  of  Jesus  and  others  of  her  company;  and  it 
seems  to  me  more  probable  than  not  that  he  would  know 
something  of  the  facts  which  the  other  Evangelists  re- 
cord. At  least  from  his  silence  we  are  not  entitled  to 
infer  the  contrary.  His  Gospel  opens  with  the  words : 
"  The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God."  But  why  or  how  the  Son  of  God  8  Who  will 
say  what  explanation  he  would  have  given  of  this  title, 
had  he  been  asked  to  do  it  ?  Or  will  venture  to  affirm 
that  his  answer  would  have  been  different  from  that 
which  the  other  Gospels  afford  ? 

2.  I  turn  in  the  next  place  to  John.  Here  the  same 
remark  has  to  be  made  to  begin  with,  that  John's  Gospel 
can  be  no  contradiction  of  Matthew's  and  Luke's,  for  the 
plain  reason  that  John  does  not  narrate  the  earthly 
origin  of  Jesus  at  all,  but  contents  himself  with  the  di- 
vine descent.  "  The  Word  became  flesh,"  2  he  tells  us : 
but  how  he  does  not  say.  His  words  assuredly  do  not 
exclude — as  some  have  strangely  imagined — an  excep- 
tional mode  of  birth;  rather  the  assertion  of  so  trans- 
cendent a  fact  creates  a  presumption  in  favour  of  the 
truth  of  what  is  narrated  in  the  other  Gospels.  It  would 
be  as  reasonable  to  argue  that  John  meant  to  deny  that 
»Actsxii.  12.  '  John  i.  14. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  109 

Jesus  was  born  at  all,  as  that  he  meant  to  deny  that  His 
birth  was  such  as  the  Gospels  describe. 

There  is  a  good  deal  more  than  this,  however,  to  be 
said  about  John.  The  case  stands  here  quite  differently 
from  what  it  did  with  Mark,  where  it  was  possible  to 
doubt  whether  the  Evangelist  knew  anything  of  Christ's 
supernatural  origin.  No  doubt  of  this  kind  is  possible 
about  John.  John  had  unquestionably  the  Gospels  of 
Matthew  and  Luke  in  his  hands ;  he  wrote,  as  we  shall 
see,  at  a  time  when  the  Virgin  Birth  was  already  a  gen- 
eral article  of  belief  in  the  Church ;  it  is  generally  un- 
derstood that  one  part  of  his  design,  at  least,  was  to 
supplement  the  other  Gospels  with  material  from  his 
own  recollections.  What  then  is  John's  relation  to  the 
narratives  of  the  birth  of  Christ  in  these  earlier  Gos- 
pels ?  He  knew  them.  Does  he  repudiate  them  ?  Or 
contradict  them  ?  Or  correct  them  ?  If  he  does  not — 
and  who  will  be  bold  enough  to  affirm  that  he  does  ? — 
what  remains  but  to  believe  that  he  accepted  and  en- 
dorsed them?  Eemember  that  Mary  had  been  placed 
under  John's  guardianship  by  Jesus  Himself,  and  prob- 
ably lived  in  his  house  till  she  died.1  Remember  also 
that  these  stories,  if  not  true,  could  only  be  interpreted 
in  a  way  which  implied  a  slur  on  Mary's  good  name. 
Is  it  conceivable  that,  if  he  knew  them  to  be  false,  the 
Evangelist  would  have  met  them  with  no  word  of  in- 
dignant denial? 

*  John  xix.  26,  27. 


110  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

There  is  another  fact  to  be  mentioned  in  this  con- 
nection. One  of  the  best-attested  traditions  of  the  early 
Church  about  John — it  comes  to  us  through  Irenseus, 
on  the  authority  of  Polycarp,  John's  own  disciple  * — is 
that  he  was  in  keenest  personal  antagonism  to  the 
Gnostic  teacher,  Cerinthus,  his  contemporary  at  Ephe- 
sus.  We  know  very  well  about  the  errors  of  Cerinthus. 
He  taught  that  the  earthly  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary  by  ordinary  generation,  and  that  the  heavenly 
Christ  descended  on  Him  at  the  Baptism,  but  subse- 
quently deserted  Him.  He  is  the  earliest  known  im- 
pugner  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  The  story  of  John  fleeing 
from  the  bath-house  because  he  perceived  Cerinthus 
within,  may  be  legendary,  but  the  abhorrence  of  the 
tenets  of  Cerinthus  which  it  enshrines  is  doubtless  his- 
torical. Is  it  to  be  supposed,  then,  that  John  and  the 
arch-heretic  were  at  one  on  the  very  point  in  which 
Cerinthus  came  into  sharpest  conflict  with  the  belief  of 
his  time  ? 

Does  John's  Gospel  contain  any  clue  to  his  knowledge 
of  the  wonderful  facts  of  Christ's  birth  ?  Not  directly, 
perhaps,  but  indirectly,  I  should  say — yes.  Let  me 
refei4  to  only  one  doctrinal  point,  with  which  an  inter- 
esting textual  question  is  connected.  John  has  often 
been  accused  of  idealising  Jesus.  But  this  is  a  one-sided 
view.  The  Jesus  of  John  is  no  unreal,  super-earthly, 
transcendental  being — no  Gnostic  seon,  or  spectral  ab- 
2  Iren.  iii.  4.     Cf.  Gore,  Dissertations,  pp.  49-51. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  111 

straction — but  true  man  in  every  sense  of  the  word.  The 
supreme  heresy  to  John  was  the  denial  that  Jesus  had 
"  come  in  the  flesh."  x  To  him  the  declaration,  "  the 
Word  became  flesh  "  was  weighted  with  tremendous  em- 
phasis. Jesus  "  came  in  the  flesh  " — had  a  true  human 
beginning — but  how?  Recall  that  saying  of  Jesus  to 
Nicodemus — "  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh : 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  2  Man  in  his 
natural  condition,  that  is — as  born  simply  of  the  flesh — 
cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God.  Did  John  then  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  was  ever  by  nature  excluded  from  the 
kingdom,  or  needed  a  spiritual  regeneration  in  order  to 
enter  it  ?  If  not,  by  what  constitution  of  Person  did  He 
obtain  that  exemption?  If  even  of  believers  it  is  said 
that  they  "  were  born,  not  of  blood  [Gr.  "  bloods  " — 
male  and  female?],  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of 
the  will  of  man,  but  of  God,"3  what  is  to  be  said  of  Him 
who  never  needed  to  be  born  anew,  but  came  into  the 
world  holy  from  the  first — "  the  only  begotten  of  the 
Father  "  ?  4  This  brings  me  to  the  textual  question  I 
spoke  of.  There  is  a  curious  reading  of  this  verse, 
John  i.  13,  found  in  some  of  the  Fathers,  which,  chang- 
ing the  "  which  were  "  into  "  who  was,"  applies  the 
whole  passage  to  Christ  — "  Who  was  born,  not  of 
bloods,"  etc.    I  do  not  think  of  accepting  as  correct  this 

1 1  John  iv.  2,  3.  2  Ibid.,  iii.  6.  3  Ibid.,  i.  13. 

4  What  precisely  is  the  connotation  even  of  this  expression — 
"  only  begotten  of  the  Father"? 


112  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

reading,  which,  however,  is  defended  by  the  late  Prof. 
Blass,1  and,  with  slight  modification,  is  looked  favour- 
ably on  by  Zahn ;  but  I  agree  at  least  with  these  scholars 
that  the  reading  is  on  the  track  of  a  right  idea.  It  is 
the  mode  of  Christ's  birth  which  is  in  view,  and  which 
furnishes  the  type  of  the  (spiritual)  new  birth  of  be- 
lievers. As  Paul  in  Eph.  i.  19,  20  takes  God's  mighty 
power  in  raising  Christ  from  the  dead  as  the  type  of 
the  quickening  of  believers — "  According  to-  the  work- 
ing of  the  strength  of  His  might  which  He  wrought  in 
Christ  when  He  raised  Him  from  the  dead  "  ;  2  so  John 
here  takes  as  a  pattern  the  divine  begetting  of  Christ  in 
His  conception  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

This  is  a  doctrinal  point,  but  take  now  one  or  two  that 
are  historical.  We  saw  that  one  objection  to  the  nar- 
ratives of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  that,  in  the  after  history, 
Mary  shows  no  consciousness  of  the  divine  greatness  of 
her  Son.  But  this  at  least  is  not  true  of  the  Gospel  of 
John.  There,  as  the  incident  of  the  marriage  of  Cana 
plainly  shows,  Mary  regarded  Jesus  from  the  beginning 
as  endowed  with  supernatural  powers.3  It  is  the  irony 
of  this  mode  of  criticism  that  the  only  Gospel  which 
shows  clearly  this  consciousness  on  the  part  of  Mary 
should  be  one  challenged  for  ignorance  of  the  Virgin 
Birth !  Another  point  on  which  objection  has  been  taken 
is,  that  none  of  the  Gospels,  outside  the  birth-narratives, 

1  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  234,  etc. 

2  Eph.  i.  19,  20.  8  Cf .  John  ii.  3,  5. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  113 

show  a  knowledge  of  the  birth  at  Bethlehem.  Is  that 
true  of  John  ?  In  ch.  vii.  41,  42,  John  represents  the 
multitude  as  saying :  "  What,  doth  the  Christ  come  out 
of  Galilee !  Hath  not  the  Scripture  said  that  the  Christ 
cometh  of  the  seed  of  David,  and  from  Bethlehem,  the 
village  where  David  was  ?  "  The  opponents  of  the  Vir- 
gin Birth — Schmiedel,1  Soltau,2  Usener,3  and  others — 
turn  this  round  into  a  proof  that  John  did  not  believe 
that  Jesus  was  born  in  Bethlehem,  seeing  that  he  did  not 
correct  the  misapprehensions  of  the  multitude — Soltau 
even  sees  in  it  a  polemic  against  that  idea.  Usener,  on 
his  part,  thinks  that  the  text  "  reveals  the  hidden  path 
by  which  Bethlehem  had  found  its  way  into  the  Gospel 
tradition."  This,  however,  is  a  missing  of  the  point. 
It  might  as  well  be  argued — indeed  Soltau  does  argue  it 
— that  John  did  not  believe  that  Jesus  was  of  the  seed  of 
David.  We  may  take  it  that  John  accepted  the  prophecy 
that  Christ  should  come  out  of  Bethlehem,  just  as  he  did 
the  fact  of  the  Davidic  descent,  and  we  know  that  it  was 
an  axiom  with  him  that  "  the  Scripture  cannot  be 
broken."  4  He  must  therefore  have  believed  that  Beth- 
lehem was  Christ's  birthplace,  as  the  other  Gospels  at- 
test. Prof.  Bacon  correctly  says :  "  The  author  pre- 
supposes the  birth  in  Bethlehem."  5 

» Ency.  Bib.,  article  "Mary,"  III,  p.  2959. 
2  Op.  cit.,  p.  19  (E.  T.). 
,.    » Ency.  Bib.,  article  "Nativity,"  III,  p.  3347. 
*  John  x.  35;  xix.  36,  37. 
« Article  "Genealogy,"  Hastings'  Diet,  o/  Bible,  II,  p.  138. 


114  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

From  Mark  and  John  I  pass  to  a  weightier  count  of 
the  indictment  in  the  alleged  silence  of  Paul  on  this 
mystery  of  our  faith.  That  Paul,  in  his  numerous  writ- 
ings, shows  no  trace  of  acquaintance  with  the  Virgin 
Birth  is  held  to  be  a  powerful  evidence  against  the 
reality  of  the  fact.  I  shall  ask  you  to  consider  how  far 
this  silence  of  Paul  extends,  and  whether  there  are  not 
counter-indications  of  the  Apostle's  belief  in  the  Lord's 
supernatural  origin. 

It  is  first  to  be  observed  that,  even  were  Paul's  silence 
as  great  as  is  alleged,  it  would  not  justify  the  conclusion 
which  the  objectors  draw  from  it.  It  is  to  be  remem- 
bered that  Paul  is  not  in  the  habit  of  alluding  to,  or  re- 
calling, the  incidents  in  Christ's  life — incidents  which 
must  have  been  perfectly  familiar  to  him  from  the  com- 
mon preaching.1  His  whole  interest  in  the  Epistles 
centres  in  the  great  facts  of  Christ's  death  and  resur- 
rection. It  is  granted  that  Paul  nowhere  expressly  men- 
tions the  Virgin  Birth,  but  there  is  nothing  strange  in 
the  fact.  The  Incarnation  for  Paul  rested  on  its  own 
broad  evidence  in  the  Person  and  work  of  Christ,  and 
was  attested  by  the  great  public  fact  of  the  resurrection. 
On  that,  therefore,  he  uniformly  builds,  and  not  on  a 
fact  of  so  essentially  private  a  nature  (the  Gospels  had 
not  yet  publicly  divulged  it)  as  the  birth  from  Mary. 

»Cf.  I  Cor.  xi.  23/f.;  Acts  xiii.  23#.,  etc.  It  might  as  well  be 
argued  that  Paul  did  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  Mary,  since  he 
never  once  mentions  her. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  115 

Did  Paul,  therefore,  know  nothing  of  this  mysterious 
fact  of  Christ's  origin  ?  It  is  not  essential  to  my  posi- 
tion even  to  assume  that  he  did  know  of  it,  though,  as  I 
shall  show  immediately,  there  is  a  strong  presumption 
that  he  did.  There  is  certainly  not  a  word  in  any  of  his 
Epistles  which  excludes  such  knowledge — not  even  the 
mention  of  Jesus  as  "  of  the  seed  of  David,"  1  which 
some  bring  forward,  for  precisely  the  same  language  is 
used  by  the  Evangelists  who  record  the  Virgin  Birth. 
In  estimating  the  probability  of  Paul's  knowledge,  we 
have  to  take  into  account  the  fact  that,  during  a  large 
part  of  his  journey ings,  he  had  Luke — the  author  of  the 
Third  Gospel — as  his  travelling  companion;  and  we 
may  be  very  sure  that  everything  that  Luke  knew  on  this 
subject  of  the  birth  of  Christ,  Paul  knew  likewise.  I 
do  not  mean  that  Luke's  Gospel  was  already  written; 
though  from  such  a  passage  as  I  Tim.  v.  18,  where  Paul 
quotes  as  Scriptural  the  two  sayings :  "  Thou  shalt  not 
muzzle  the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out  the  corn,"  and 
"  The  labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire  " — the  latter 
found  only  in  Luke  x.  7 — I  might  argue  that  it  was 
at  least  published  before  Paul's  death.2  But  it 
does  seem  certain  to  me  that  Luke,  while  he  was  with 
Paul,  was  already  engaged  in  those  researches  which" 
yielded  him  the  material  for  his  Gospel  (cf.  ch.  i. 
1-4),   and  I  should  be  extremely  surprised  if  these 

1  Rom.  i.  3. 

2 1  myself  see  no  difficulty  in  this  supposition.     (See  above,  p.  63.) 


116  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

did  not  include  the  chief  facts  recorded  in  his  first 
chapters.1 

But  look  now  at  Paul's  own  Epistles.  If,  as  Paul 
affirmed,  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  was  "  of  the  seed  of 
David,  according  to  the  flesh,"  He  must  have  been  hu- 
manly born.  How  did  Paul  conceive  of  that  birth  ?  You 
remember  how  strongly  in  Rom.  v.  he  affirms  the  so- 
lidarity of  the  whole  race  with  Adam,  and  how  em- 
phatically he  declares :  "  Through  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world,  and  death  through  sin;  and  so  death 
passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned."  .  .  . 
"  Through  the  one  man's  disobedience  the  many  were 
made  sinners ;  "  2  and  how  he  sets  forth  Jesus,  in  con- 
trast with  Adam,  as  the  new  Head  of  the  race,  the  Right- 
eous One,  through  whom  all  this  evil  condition  was  to 
be  reversed.  !Now  Paul's  was  a  logical  mind.  How  did 
he  explain  to  himself  this  appearance  of  a  Sinless  One 
— a  Redeemer — in  the  midst  of  a  sinful  humanity? 
How  did  he  account  for  this  exemption  of  Christ  from 
the  common  lot  of  sin  and  death  ?  Could  he  do  it,  con- 
sistently with  his  own  principles,  on  the  view  that 
Christ's  was  a  birth  simply  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
nature — that  a  miracle  of  some  kind  was  not  involved 
in  it? 

If  we  look  to  the  Epistles  for  an  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion, I  do  not  think  we  are  wholly  disappointed.  Christ's 
entrance  into  our  world,  in  Paul's  view,  was  no  ordinary 
»  Cf.  below,  pp.  119-121.  ■  Rom.  v.  12,  19. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  117 

act.  He  was  "  the  second  man  from  heaven,"  ?  who 
took  our  nature  upon  Him  by  voluntary  condescen- 
sion,2 and  I  have  been  much  struck  by  observing  that 
there  is  hardly  an  allusion  to  Christ's  entrance  into  our 
humanity  in  the  Epistles  (I  do  not  think  there  is  any) 
which  is  not  marked  by  some  significant  peculiarity  of 
expression.  I  do  not  say  that  the  peculiarities  are  such, 
as  would  of  themselves  prove  the  Virgin  Birth;  but  I 
think  it  may  be  affirmed  that  they  are  such  that  the 
Virgin  Birth,  assuming  a  knowledge  of  it  on  Paul's 
part,  would  furnish  a  simple  and  natural  key  to  them. 

Let  me  give  a  few  illustrations  of  my  meaning. 

Leaving  over  Rom.  i.  3,  4,  for  the  present,  take  two 
other  passages  relating  to  Christ's  earthly  origin,  and 
note  the  periphrastic  character  of  the  language  em- 
ployed. In  Rom.  viii.  3,  we  read :  "  God,  sending  His 
own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh  ["  flesh  of  sin  "], 
and  as  an  offering  for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh  "  ; 
and  in  Phil.  ii.  7 :  "  He  emptied  Himself,  taking  the 
form  of  a  servant,  being  made  [R.  V.  Marg.  "  becom- 
ing "]  in  the  likeness  of  men."  Is  this,  I  ask,  how  one 
is  accustomed  to  speak  of  a  natural  birth  ?  God  "  sends  " 
His  Son  "  in  the  likeness  of  flesh  of  sin  "  ;  Christ  "  emp- 
ties "  Himself,  "  taking  the  form  of  a  servant"  is  made 
or  "  becomes  "  "  in  the  likeness  of  men."  The  Son  of 
God  voluntarily  enters  our  nature,  yet  there  is  sug- 
gested a  distinction.  He  is  one  of  us,  yet  not  of  us.  He 
■ 1  Cor.  xv.  47.  2  Cf.  II  Cor.  viii.  9:  Phil  ii.  5-8. 


118  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

is  distinguished  from  us  ("  in  the  likeness  "),  specially 
in  the  point  of  sin.  He  is,  in  Luke's  phrase,  "  that  holy- 
thing  that  shall  be  born/' 1  because  a  higher  Power  is 
concerned  in  His  origin. 

Or  take  the  well-known  passage,  Gal.  iv.  4,  "  God  sent 
forth  His  Son,  born  of  a  woman,  born  under  the  law," 
and  mark  the  peculiarity  of  the  expressions.  It  is  not 
simply  that  Paul  uses  the  phrase,  "  born  of  a  woman." 
We  are  told,  even  by  Bishop  Lightfoot,  that  this  has  no 
special  meaning,  since  the  phrase  was  a  usual  one  to 
denote  simply  human  birth;  and  we  are  referred  in 
illustration  to  Matt.  xi.  11  (==:  Luke  vi.  28),  where 
Jesus  says,  "  Among  them  that  are  born  of  women  there 
hath  not  arisen  a  greater  than  John  the  Baptist."  I 
should  like  to  point  out,  however,  that  the  word  for 
"  born  "  in  this  passage  in  Matthew  is  not  that  used  by 
Paul,  and  that  Paul's  phrase  is  not,  so  far  as  I  know, 
exactly  paralleled  anywhere.  This  introduces  us  to  an 
interesting  comparison.  The  Greek  word  used  in  Mat- 
thew is  the  word  properly  denoting  "  born  "  (yewrjTos). 
The  same  word  is  used  in  the  two  cases  where  the  phrase 
occurs  in  the  Septuagint — Job  xiv.  1 ;  xv.  14.  But  in 
Paul,  here  and  elsewhere,  we  have  the  employment,  in 
application  to  Christ,  of  a  more  characteristic  term — 
"  becoming  "  (yevofievo?) .  Thus  in  Rom.  i.  3,  "was 
born  [lit.  "  became  "]  of  the  seed  of  David,"  and  in 
Phil.  ii.  7,  "  being  made  [P.  V.  Marg.  "  becoming  "]  in 
» Luke  i.  35. 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  119 

the  likeness  of  men."  So  in  this  passage  in  Gal.  iv.  4. 
It  reads :  "God  sent  forth  His  Son,  born  [lit.  "become"] 
of  a  woman,"  etc.  It  may  be  thought  that  this  is  simply 
a  case  of  Paul's  peculiar  usage ;  that  it  was  his  habit  to 
use  this,  and  not  the  more  ordinary  Greek  term.  But 
Paul  knew  the  ordinary  Greek  term  very  well.  In  this 
very  chapter  in  Galatians  he  uses  its  verb  no  fewer  than 
three  times  in  reference  to  Ishmael  and  Isaac  (ch.  iv. 
23,  24,  29).  But  when  he  speaks  of  Jesus,  he  employs 
the  more  general  term,  more  appropriate  to  one  of  whom 
John  likewise  says — "  The  Word  became  flesh."  1  In 
such  a  connection,  it  may  be  felt  that  the  expression, 
"  born  of  a  woman,"  derives  a  new  significance. 

I  now  go  back  to  Bom.  i.  3,  4,  and  ask  your  attention 
to  one  or  two  points  of  interest  in  connection  with  these 
verses.  Prof.  Pfleiderer  had  a  curious  theory  about  this 
passage  which  he  has  since  abandoned.  He  actually 
thought  he  saw  in  these  words  of  Paul  about  Jesus  "  be- 
ing born  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh," 
and  "  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  ac- 
cording to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead,"  the  origin  of  Luke's  narrative  of  the  Virgin 
Birth.2  The  idea  is,  of  course,  untenable,  yet  there  is 
a  gleam  of  insight  in  it.  I  confess  it  is  difficult  for  me 
to  read  this  passage  in  Romans,  and  rid  my  mind  of  the 
impression  that  there  is  a  relation  between  it  and  what 

» John  i.  14. 

2  See  his  Urchristenthum,  1st  Ed.,  pp.  420-1. 


120  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

we  find  in  Luke  i.  35.1  Look  at  the  words  in  the  Gospel. 
The  angel  announces  to  Mary  that  she  shall  conceive  in 
her  womb,  and  bring  forth  a  son,  and  that  "  the  Lord 
God  shall  give  unto  Him  the  throne  of  His  father 
David "  (vers.  31,  32).  Then,  when  Mary  inquires 
how  this  shall  be  (ver.  34),  the  answer  is  given:  "  The 
Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee ;  wherefore  also  that 
which  is  to  be  born  shall  be  called  holy,  the  Son  of  God  " 
— or,  "  the  holy  thing  which  is  to  be  born  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  God"  (ver.  35).  In  the  Greek,  however, 
and  always  throughout  these  chapters,  except  in  ch.  ii. 
26,  27,  the  words  rendered  "  the  Holy  Ghost "  are 
simply  "  Holy  Spirit " — the  article  is  wanting.  Turn 
now  to  Romans.  Here  Paul  announces,  first,  that  Jesus 
was  born  "  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the 
flesh";  then  Al^at  He  was  declared  (not  "constituted," 
but  "  defined  ")  by  the  resurrection  "  to  be  the  Son  of 
God,  with  [or  "  in  "]  power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of 
holiness."  The  last  is  a  peculiar  expression.  It  also  is, 
literally,  "  Spirit  of  holiness,"  without  the  article.  The 
contrast  indicated  is  commonly  taken  to  be  between 
Christ's  human  and  His  higher  or  divine  nature;  but 
it  seems  to  me  more  in  keeping  with  the  context  to  inter- 
pret it  of  origin.  "  Of  the  seed  of  David,  according  to 
the  flesh  " — on  the  side  of  fleshly  origin ;  "  Son  of  God, 

1  The  narrative  at  the  basis  of  the  Gospel  may  have  been  known 
to  Paul  through  Luke.     (See  above,  p.  115.) 


SILENCE  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  121 

with  [or  "  in  "]  power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holi- 
ness "  on  the  side  of  higher  spiritual  origin.  The  words 
are  then  almost  an  echo  of  Luke's — "  Give  unto  Him 
the  throne  of  His  father  David  " — "  Holy  Spirit  shall 
come  upon  thee" — "Power  of  the  Most  High  shall  over- 
shadow thee  " — "  Wherefore  also  that  which  is  to  be 
born  shall  be  called  .  .  .  the  Son  of  God  "  (or,  "  the 
holy  thing  which  is  to  be  born,"  etc.).1 

To  allude  to  only  one  other  passage,  it  is  a  fair 
exegetical  question,  I  think,  whether,  in  the  light  of  its 
context  ("  For  Adam  was  first  formed,  then  Eve,"  etc.), 
the  phrase  in  I  Tim.  ii.  15,  "  Saved  through  the  child- 
bearing,"  should  not  be  taken,  with  Ellicott  and  others, 
as  an  allusion  to  the  promise  in  Gen.  iii.  15,  and  its  ful- 
filment in  the  birth  of  the  Saviour. 

I  hope  I  have  said  enough  to  show  that  Paul  is  not  a 
witness  that  can  be  relied  on  to  disprove  the  Virgin 
Birth.2 

In  the  remaining  books  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
only  passage  I  need  advert  to  is  the  description  in  Rev. 

xThe  suggested  parallels  may  be  exhibited  as  follows: 
Luke  Paul 

'*  bring  forth  a  Son  "  "  born  " 

"  His  father  David  "  "  of  the  seed  of  David  " 

"  Holy  Spirit "  "  Spirit  of  holiness  " 

" Power  of  Most  High"  "with  [or  "  in "]  power" 

"Wherefore  called  .  .  .  the  Son       "  Son  of  God,  according  to  Spirit 

of  God ' '  of  holiness ' ' 

"holy"  [implied  in  above] 

2  See  further  on  Paul's  relation  to  this  truth  in  Lects.  VII  and  VIII. 


122  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

xii.  of  the  woman  with  child,  "  arrayed  with  the  sun, 
and  the  moon  under  her  feet,  and  upon  her  head  a  crown 
of  twelve  stars  "  1 — but  the  discussion  of  this  passage  I 
postpone  till  we  come  to  the  theories  which  derive  the 
idea  of  the  Virgin  Birth  from  heathen  mythology.2  It 
is  the  newer  theorists  themselves  who  bring  this  Apoca- 
lyptic description  into  connection  with  the  Virgin  Birth, 
supposing  both  to  be  of  Babylonian  origin.  Suffice  it  to 
say  at  present  that,  if  there  is  any  relation,  and  I  am 
disposed  to  believe  that  there  is,  it  is  the  Apocalyptic 
picture  which  is  dependent  on  the  story  in  the  Gospels, 
not  the  other  way.3  In  that  case  it  is  an  additional 
attestation  of  the  Gospel  narratives. 

1  Rev.  xii.  1-6. 

2  See  below,  p.  180. 

8  Cf.  Gore,  Dissertations,  p.  9. 


LECTUEE    V 

RELATION   TO   OLD  TESTAMENT   PROPHECY WITNESS   OF 

EARLY    CHURCH   HISTORY 

It  is  obviously  not  enough  for  the  objector  to  deny 
the  historical  character  of  the  narratives  of  the  Virgin 
Birth :  he  must  find  some  method  of  explaining  how  the 
narratives  come  to  be  there.  One  such  method  very 
commonly  employed  has  been  to  represent  the  narratives 
as  myths  or  stories  arising  out  of  the  application  of  Old 
Testament  prophecies — or  what  were  taken  to  be  such — 
to  Jesus.  Strauss  was  the  great  master  of  this  method 
in  the  past.  He  carried  it  rigorously  through  the  Gospel 
history,  developing  from  it  his  well-known  "  mythical 
theory  "  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  The  Jews,  he  reasoned, 
entertained  certain  notions  of  the  Messianic  character 
and  office.  The  Messiah,  for  instance,  was  to  be  a  Son  of 
David,  was  to  be  born  at  Bethlehem,  was  to  do  great 
signs  and  wonders,  was  to  come  to  Jerusalem  riding  on 
an  ass.  But  Jesus,  His  disciples  believed,  was  the  Mes- 
siah. Therefore  these  things  must  have  happened  to 
Him.  So  stories  grew  up,  or  were  invented,  showing 
that  they  did  happen  to  Him. 

This  theory  of  Strauss's,  as  a  general  theory  of  the 
123 


124  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

life  of  Christ,  could  not  maintain  itself.  Apart  from 
other  objections,  it  assumed  a  unity  in  Jewish  concep- 
tions of  the  Messiah  which  we  know  did  not  exist,  and 
broke  down  on  the  absurdity  of  supposing  a  multitude 
of  minds  evolving  from  a  miscellany  of  Old  Testament 
predictions  a  picture  of  such  coherence  and  harmony  as 
that  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels. 

While,  however,  Strauss's  theory  had  to  be  abandoned 
as  a  general  explanation  of  the  Gospel  history,  the 
method  of  finding  in  Old  Testament  prophecies  the 
germ  of  Gospel  narratives  was  still  retained  in  certain 
cases — particularly  in  the  derivation  of  the  story,  or 
"  myth,"  of  the  Virgin  Birth  from  the  prophecy  in 
Is.  vii.  14,  "  Behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive,  and  bear 
a  son,"  etc.,  with  which  it  is  associated  in  Matthew. 
This  prophecy,  it  was  thought,  lay  so  aptly  to  hand  that 
there  was  no  need  of  going  further  in  search  of  an  ex- 
planation. As  Lobstein  puts  it :  "  The  new  faith,  in 
quest  of  arguments  and  illustrations  furnished  by  the 
Old  Testament,  hit  upon  a  prophetic  passage  which  fur- 
nished religious  feeling  with  its  exact  and  definite  for- 
mula." 1  This  is  the  view,  accordingly,  formerly  taken 
by  such  writers  as  Keim  and  Beyschlag,  and  now  fa- 
voured by  Lobstein,  Harnack,  and  many  more. 

But  just  here  a  deep  cleft  in  the  opposing  camp  re- 
veals itself ;  for,  as  has  already  been  indicated,  the  newer 

1  The  Virgin  Birth,  p.  73.  This  is  what  Harnack  euphemistically 
describes  as  "enriching  the  life  of  Jesus  with  new  facts"!  (Hist, 
of  Dogma,  I,  p.  100.) 


OLD  TESTAMENT  PROPHECY  125 

school,  represented  by  such  writers  as  Schmiedel,  Soltau, 
Usener,  Gunkel,  Cheyne,  declare  emphatically  that  a 
derivation  from  Isaiah's  oracle  is  impossible,  and  that 
the  origin  of  the  idea  of  the  Virgin  Birth  must  be 
sought,  not  in  Hebrew  prophecy,  or  from  Jewish  sources 
of  any  kind,  but  outside — in  paganism.  The  subject 
will  come  up  again,1  but  the  reasons  urged  against  a 
Jewish  origin  of  the  idea  may  here  be  briefly  given : 

1.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  prophecy  in 
Is.  vii.  14  was  ever  applied  by  the  Jews  to  the  Messiah. 
We  know,  indeed,  that  it  was  not.  Edersheim  gives  a 
list  of  all  the  passages — some  456  of  them2 — which  were 
Messianically  interpreted  by  the  Jews,  but  this  is  not 
among  them. 

2.  The  Hebrew  word  used  in  the  prophecy,  'almah, 
does  not,  scholars  tell  us,  properly  mean  "  virgin,"  but 
denotes  in  strictness  only  a  marriageable  young  woman. 
I  shall  return  to  this  presently.  Meanwhile,  it  is  certain 
that  no  expectation  of  the  birth  of  the  Messiah  ever  ob- 
tained among  the  Jews  3 — not  even  after  the  translation 
of  this  word  in  the  Greek  version  by  irapOevos,  which 
does  mean  virgin.  - 

3.  The  idea  of  birth  from  a  Virgin  was,  as  stated  be- 
fore,4 one  wholly  foreign  to  the  Jewish  mind.  The  Jews 
honoured  marriage  and  family  life,  and  children  were 
regarded  by  them  as  a  heritage  from  the  Lord.     There 

1  See  below,  pp.  154—5.  2  Jesus  the  Messiah,  App.  vii. 

3  On  Mr.  Badham'  *rtions  to  the  contrary,  cf.  Gore,  Disser- 

tations, pp.  289/f.  *  See  above,  p.  82. 


126  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

were  cases  of  children  given  by  promise,  as  Isaac,  Sam- 
son, Samuel,  and  now  John  the  Baptist;  but  the  birth 
was  always  in  the  estate  of  marriage.1 

4.  In  Luke's  narrative  there  is  no  hint  of  connection 
with  Is.  vii.  14,  or  with  any  prophecy.  Harnack,  as 
we  saw,  evades  this  by  declaring  that  ch.  i.  34,  35  is  an 
interpolation,  and  that  Luke  had  not  originally  the  story 
of  a  Virgin  Birth.  But  I  sought  to  show  before  that 
there  is  not  the  least  good  ground  for  this  assertion.2 

5.  To  these  reasons  it  may  be  added  that,  even  if  the 
idea  of  a  Virgin  Birth  had  occurred  to  the  mind  of  any 
Christian  reader  of  this  prophecy,  there  was  the  strong- 
est reason  why  such  a  story  as  that  which  we  have  in 
the  Gospels  should  not  have  been  spun  out  of  it.  A 
story  like  that  of  Matthew — if  not  true — could  only 
have  one  result:  to  provide  material  for  such  slander 
of  Mary  and  Jesus  as  we  shall  see  did  afterwards  arise 
in  the  Jewish  Synagogue. 

Dr.  Cheyne  and  his  friends,  therefore,  must  be  al- 
lowed to  have  good  reasons  for  rejecting  Is.  vii.  14  as 
the  explanation  of  the  narrative  in  Matthew.  Whether 
their  own  theory  is  in  any  better  case  I  shall  consider 
in  next  lecture. 

1  Cf.  Neander,  Life  of  Christ,  p.  15:  "Such  a  fable  as  the  birth  of 
the  Messiah  from  a  virgin  could  have  arisen  anywhere  else  easier 
than  among  the  Jews;  their  doctrine  of  the  divine  unity  placed  an 
impassable  gulf  between  God  and  the  world;  their  high  regard  for 
the  marriage  relation,"  etc. 

2  See  above,  pp.  5Sff. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  PROPHECY        127 

Do  I  then,  it  will  now  be  asked,  deny  the  reality  of 
Messianic  prophecy  in  connection  with  the  birth  of 
Jesus  ?  Or  do  I  question  the  legitimacy  of  the  Evan- 
gelist's application  of  this  prediction  in  Is.  vii.  14  ?  I 
reply :  By  no  means.  I  am  dealing  in  what  I  have  said 
with  the  hypothesis  that  the  story  is  a  fiction,  evolved 
from  Isaiah's  words;  but  I  in  no  way  doubt  the  Evan- 
gelist's right  to  regard  the  birth  of  Jesus  as  a  fulfilment 
of  this  prophecy,  once  the  event  itself  had  thrown  back 
light  upon  the  meaning  of  the  oracle.  To  see,  however, 
how  the  question  precisely  stands,  it  is  necessary  to  take 
a  wider  and  more  systematic  view  of  Matthew's  use  of 
prophecy  in  the  narrative  of  the  Lord's  birth. 

Observe  then  first,  generally,  that  Matthew's  is  the 
theocratic  Gospel,  evidently  penned  with  the  design  of 
showing  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Jesus  had  already  taught  His  disciples  to  see  the  ful- 
filment of  Old  Testament  prophecy  in  Himself;  to  re- 
gard Him  as  the  goal  of  all  Old  Testament  revelation ; 
to  think  of  everything  in  the  Old  Testament  as  pointing 
forward  to  Him.  It  is  in  this  light  that  Matthew  looks 
always  at  the  life  of  Christ.  It  is  not,  as  Strauss 
thought,  that  the  incidents  in  the  Gospel  are  evolved 
from  the  prophecies ;  but,  the  incidents  being  given,  it 
is  sought  to  be  shown  how  much  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
fulfilled  in  them.  The  Evangelist,  with  this  aim,  is  ever 
on  the  outlook  to  find  suggestions,  preludings,  forecast- 
ings,  prophecies,  of  the  things  he  is  narrating — some- 


128  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

times  actual  predictions,  sometimes  only  applications,  or 
what  we  would  call  "  illustrations."  1  I  confine  myself 
to  the  instances  in  the  sections  on  the  Infancy. 

1.  Take  the  case  in  which  it  is  said  that  the  residence 
of  Jesus  at  Nazareth  fulfilled  that  "  which  was  spoken 
by  the  prophets,  that  He  should  be  called  a  Nazarene."  2 
There  is  no  such  specific  prediction  in  any  of  the 
prophets.  Nor  does  Matthew  say  there  is.  He  speaks 
generally  of  "  the  prophets."  What  then  is  the  ex- 
planation? Simply,  I  think,  this.  It  was  made  a  re- 
proach to  Jesus  that  He  came  from  so  small  and  despised 
a  place  as  Nazareth.3  His  disciples  were  contemptu- 
ously named  "  the  Nazarenes."  4  The  Evangelist  sees 
in  this  the  fulfilment  of  a  whole  series  of  prophecies 
about  the  lowly  and  despised  origin  of  the  Messiah — 
especially  of  the  prophecy  in  Is.  xi.  1,  which  speaks  of 
Him  as  a  Nezer,  or  shoot,  out  of  the  stump  of  Jesse, 
then  decayed  to  its  roots.  The  application  was  the  more 
natural,  that,  as  there  seems  ground  for  affirming,  the 
name  "  Nazareth  "  is  derived  from  this  very  word.5 

2.  Take  next  the  case  in  which  the  Evangelist  sees 
in  the  return  from  Egypt  a  fulfilment  of  the  word  of 
the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  "  Out  of  Egypt  did  I  call  my 

1  Mi.  Sweet  has  valuable  remarks  on  this  point  in  his  volume  on 
The  Birth  and  Infancy  of  Jesus  Christ,  ch.  ii,  etc. 

2  Matt.  ii.  23.  3  Cf.  John  i.  46;  vii.  41.  •  Cf.  Acts  xxiv.  5. 
•For  authorities,  see  Hengstenberg,  Christology,  II,  p.  106.     It 

is  stated  that  in  the  Talmud  the  name  Ben  Nezer,  i.  e.,  the  Nazarene^ 
is  given  to  Jesus.     Cf.  also  Meyer,  Com.  on  Matt.,  I,  p.  98. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  PROPHECY  129 

Son."  *  Egypt  had  been  the  place  of  refuge  of  Israel 
for  a  time ;  afterwards,  when  oppression  overtook  Israel, 
God,  in  a  wonderful  way,  brought  His  people  out,  to 
give  them  their  own  land.  "  When  Israel  was  a  child  I 
loved  Him,"  it  is  said  in  Hosea  xi.  1,  "  and  called  my 
son  out  of  Egypt."  The  Evangelist  reads  this  passage, 
and  sees  in  it  a  dealing  of  God  which  had  a  new  and 
higher  fulfilment  in  the  calling  back  of  Him  who  was 
the  Son — Immanuel,  God  with  us — out  of  Egypt.  It  is 
quite  clearly  the  incident  that  suggests  the  application 
of  the  prophecy  here,  not  vice  versa. 

3.  Again,  take  the  passage  about  Rachel  weeping  for 
her  children,  suggested  by  the  slaughter  of  the  infants 
at  Bethlehem.2  In  its  original  connection  in  Jer.  xxxi. 
15,  the  passage  refers  to  the  carrying  off  of  the  exiles 
to  Babylon,  and  the  scene  is  laid  in  Ramah,  in  Ben- 
jamin. "  A  voice  is  heard  in  Ramah,  lamentation  and 
bitter  weeping,  Rachel  [the  ancestress  of  the  Benjamin- 
ites]  weeping  for  her  children ;  she  ref useth  to  be  com- 
forted for  her  children,  because  they  are  not."  The  sole 
point  of  connection  with  Bethlehem  is  that,  according  to 
Genesis  (xxxv.  19  ;  xlviii.  73),  Rachel's  tomb  was  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  that  city.  All  this  the  Evangelist  is 
quite  aware  of,  for  he,  too,  makes  the  lamentation  and 

i  Matt.  ii.  15.  *  Matt.  ii.  17,  18. 

8  On  the  apparent  contradiction  of  this  site  with  that  suggested 
by  I  Sam.  x.  2,  see  Delitzsch,  Genesis,  in  loc.  Probably  the  "  city  "  in 
which  Samuel  was  at  the  time  was  not  Ramah.  Cf .  article  rt  Ramah  " 
in  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible. 


130  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

weeping  in  the  prophetic  passage  to  be  at  Raman ;  but, 
by  a  bold  figure,  using  Rachel,  whose  grave  was  in  the 
vicinity,  as  representative  of  the  motherhood  of  Bethle- 
hem,1 he  finds  a  new  application  of  the  prophetic  words 
in  the  wailing  that  filled  city  and  neighbourhood  at  the 
slaughter  of  the  babes.  It  is  again  clear  from  the  fact 
that  the  prophet's  words  had  no  original  application  to 
Bethlehem,  that  it  is  not  from  the  prophecy  the  incident 
is  evolved. 

4.  I  come  now  to  a  passage  which  differs  from  the 
preceding  in  that  it  is  Messianic  and  directly  prophetic 
— I  refer  to  the  prophecy  in  Mic.  v.  3,  which  predicts 
the  coming  forth  of  the  ruler  of  Israel  from  Bethlehem. 
"  But  thou,  Bethlehem  Ephrathah,  which  art  little  to  be 
among  the  thousands  of  Judah,  out  of  thee  shall  one 
come  forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel,  whose 
goings  forth  are  from  of  old,  from  Everlasting."  There 
is  no  doubt  that  this  passage  was  accepted  as  Messianic 
by  the  Jews.  We  know  this  from  Jewish  sources  them- 
selves,2 and  we  see  it  in  the  Gospels.  The  scribes  at  once 
put  their  finger  on  this  passage  when  asked  by  the  wise 
men  where  Christ  should  be  born ; 3  and  John  vii.  42 
shows  that  it  was  a  current  belief  that  the  Christ  should 
come  out  of  Bethlehem.  Given,  then,  a  faculty  or  dis- 
position for  invention,  it  may  be  thought  easy  to  explain 

1  The  massacre  included  the  surrounding  district,  no  doubt  also 
the  part  where  Rachel's  tomb  was  situated. 

2  See  Edersheim,  as  above, 
s  Matt.  ii.  5,  6. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  PROPHECY  131 

how  a  birthplace  was  sought  for  Jesus  in  Bethlehem. 
But  there  is  one  obvious  difficulty.  The  passage  might 
suggest  a  birth  in  Bethlehem,  but  it  would  certainly  not 
suggest  the  hind  of  birth  we  have  described  in  Matthew 
and  Luke.  The  prophecy  in  Micah  speaks  of  a  prince,  a 
ruler,  going  forth  from  David's  city.  How  different  the 
picture  in  the  two  Evangelists  of  the  lowly  Babe,  cradled 
in  a  manger,  because  there  was  no  room  for  Him — not 
to  speak  of  a  palace — even  in  the  common  inn!  The 
prophecy  was  fulfilled,  in  God's  good  providence,  as 
Matthew  notes ;  but  it  was  not  fulfilled  in  the  way  that 
human  imagination,  working  on  the  prophet's  words, 
would  have  devised.  Is  the  story  one  that  human  imag- 
ination, granting  it  a  free  rein,  would  naturally  have 
devised  at  all  for  the  advent  of  the  Messiah?  Here 
again  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Luke,  who  gives  the  most 
detailed  account  of  the  birth  at  Bethlehem,  has  no  sug- 
gestion of  a  connection  with  prophecy. 

I  now  return  by  this  somewhat  roundabout  road  to 
the  prophecy  in  Is.  vii.  14,  with  which  we  set  out.  The 
Jews  may  not  have  given  this  prophecy  a  Messianic  ap- 
plication,1 but  the  Evangelist,  looking  back  upon  it  with 
the  facts  before  him,  rightly  saw  its  Messianic  import. 
That  therein  he  displayed  a  true  discernment,  a  brief 
inspection  of  the  passage  will,  I  think,  make  clear. 

First  recall  the  circumstances  in  which  the  prophecy 
1  See  above,  p.  125. 


132  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

was  given.1  The  throne  of  Ahaz  was  threatened  by  a 
coalition  of  the  kings  of  Ephraim  and  Syria,  which  had 
for  its  object  to  depose  Ahaz,  and  set  up  a  creature  of 
their  own,  a  certain  son  of  Tabeel,  in  his  stead.  Isaiah 
was  sent  to  Ahaz  to  assure  him  that  the  conspiracy  would 
not  succeed.  A  sign  was  offered  to  the  king  "  either  in 
the  depth  (Sheol),  or  in  the  height  above."  But  Ahaz, 
who  had  designs  of  his  own  of  an  alliance  with  Assyria, 
in  mock  humility  declined  the  sign.  Who  was  he,  that 
he  should  "  tempt  the  Lord  "  ?  The  indignation  of  the 
prophet  then  broke  forth  upon  him.  "  Hear  ye  now,  O 
house  of  David,  is  it  a  small  thing  for  you  to  weary  men, 
that  ye  will  weary  my  God  also !  "  The  Lord  Himself, 
the  prophet  announced,  would  give  Ahaz  a  sign;  and, 
after  the  king's  refusal  of  a  sign  in  the  depths  of  Sheol 
and  the  heights  of  heaven,  we  are  justified  in  expecting 
that  the  sign  the  Lord  would  give  would  be  no  ordinary 
one.  What  was  the  sign  ?  I  quote  from  the  R.  V. : 
"  Behold,  a  virgin  shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son,  and 
shall  call  his  name  Immanuel,"  etc.  How  are  we  to  un- 
derstand these  words  I 

The  first  point  relates  to  the  word  rendered  "  virgin  " 
— the  word  'almdh.  This  word,  Hebrew  authorities  tell 
us,  no  doubt  correctly,  does  not  strictly  mean  "  virgin," 
but  simply  a  young  woman  of  marriageable  age.  There 
is  another  word — bethulah — which  does  express  virgin- 
ity in  the  strict  sense.  Even  this  word,  it  is  worth 
i  Cf .  Is.  vii. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  PROPHECY  133 

noticing,  is  once  used  (in  Joel  i.  8)  of  a  bride  lamenting 
over  her  bridegroom.  The  objection  from  the  meaning 
of  'almah  was,  as  we  learn  from  Justin  Martyr,1 
Origen,2  and  other  fathers,3  one  urged  by  the  Jews 
against  the  Christian  interpretation  of  the  passage  from 
the  earliest  times.  But  it  may  fairly  be  replied  now, 
as  it  was  then,  that,  if  the  word  does  not  necessarily  bear 
this  meaning  of  "  virgin,"  it  may,  and  indeed  usually 
does,  bear  it.  In  fact,  in  all  the  six  places  in  which, 
besides  this  passage,  the  word  occurs  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, it  may  be  contended  that  this  is  its  meaning.4 
The  Septuagint  renders  it  here  by  irapOivos,  and  even 
the  R.  V.  retains  the  translation  "  virgin,"  while  giving 
in  the  margin  "  maiden."  It  is  true  that  the  word 
means,  as  stated,  a  marriageable  young  woman;  but  it 
is  not  less  true  that  in  its  use  in  the  Old  Testament  it 
means  an  unmarried  young  woman ;  and  we  may  repeat 
the  challenge  of  Luther :  "  If  a  Jew  or  Christian  can 
prove  to  me  that  in  any  passage  of  Scripture  'almah 
means  i  a  married  woman/  I  will  give  him  100  florins, 
although  God  alone  knows  where  I  may  find  them."  5 

1  Dial,  with  Trypho,  43,  66-7.  2  Against  Celsus,  i.  34. 

3Cf.  Iren.  iii.  21;  Tert.  Against  the  Jews,  9;  Against  Marcion,  iii. 
13,  etc. 

■  The  passages  are,  Gen.  xxiv.  43  (LXX  translates  irapQivos) ;  Exod. 
ii.  8;  Ps.  lxviii.  26;  Song  of  Sol.  i.  3;  vi.  8;  Prov.  xxx.  19.  Cf.  Heng- 
stenberg,  Christology  II,  pp.  45-47.  Prof.  Willis  Beecher  says: 
"There  is  no  trace  of  its  use  to  denote  any  other  than  a  Virgin" 
{Prophets  and  Promise,  p.  334). 

« Cf.  Hengstenberg,  II,  p.  45. 


134  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

This  maiden,  then,  in  the  prophet's  oracle,  is  figured 
(the  tenses  are  present)  as  conceiving,  as  bearing  a  son, 
and  as  giving  Him  the  name  Immanuel,  "  God  with 
us."  Here  is  a  sign  indeed,  and  with  it  agrees  the  scope 
of  the  prophecy  as  a  whole.  For  observe  carefully,  next, 
that  the  Immanuel  prophecy  does  not  end  with  these 
verses.  Its  refrain  is  heard  through  the  next  chapter 
in  connection  with  the  Assyrian  invasions :  "  He  shall 
overflow  and  pass  through;  he  shall  reach  even  to  the 
neck;  and  the  stretching  out  of  his  wings  shall  fill  the 
breadth  of  thy  land,  O  Immanuel  "  ' — "  Take  counsel 
together,  and  it  shall  be  brought  to  nought;  speak  the 
word,  and  it  shall  not  stand;  for  immanu  El,  God  is 
with  us  " ;  2  till  it  culminates  in  ch.  ix.  6,  7,  in  that 
magnificent  prediction :  "  For  unto  us  a  child  is  born, 
unto  us  a  Son  is  given ;  and  the  government  shall  be  upon 
His  shoulder ;  and  His  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful, 
Counsellor,  Mighty  God,  Everlasting  Father,  Prince  of 
Peace.  Of  the  increase  of  His  government  and  of  peace 
there  shall  be  no  end,  upon  the  throne  of  David,  and 
upon  His  kingdom,  to  establish  it,"  etc. 

The  import  of  the  prophecy  can  now  be  readily 
grasped.  The  thing  at  stake  was  the  perpetuity  of  the 
house  and  throne  of  David.  Ahaz  had  refused  a  sign, 
and  God  now  takes  the  matter  into  His  own  hands.  And 
the  guarantee  He  gives  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  house 
of  David  is  this  child  Immanuel.  The  vision  of  the 
»  Is.  viii.  8.  *  Ver.  10. 


OLD  TESTAMENT  PROPHECY  135 

prophet  sweeps  far  beyond  present  events — beyond  the 
defeat  of  Syria  and  Ephraim ;  beyond  even  the  devasta- 
tions of  the  Assyrian  invasions ;  and  he  beholds  in  this 
Son  that  should  be  born,  this  child  that  should  be  given 
— who  can  be  no  other  than  the  Messianic  King — the 
security  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  to  David,  and 
the  hope  for  the  future  of  the  world. 

The  other  elements  of  the  prophecy  fall  naturally  into 
their  places  on  this  interpretation — -even  the  time-ele- 
ments, provided  allowance  is  made  for  the  character  of 
prophetic  vision.  To  the  prophet's  view  the  maiden's 
child  is  already  there ;  is  already  conceived ;  is  about  to 
be  born ;  he  can  speak  as  if  the  period  of  its  arrival  at 
the  discernment  of  good  and  evil  defined  the  limit  of 
this  confederacy  of  Syria  and  Ephraim  (ver.  14).  But 
again  his  vision  stretches  far  beyond  that  limit  into  the 
time  of  the  Assyrian  invasions,  then,  leaving  even  these 
behind,  sees  this  child  of  David's  line,  of  the  wonderful 
names,  firmly  established  on  His  throne. 

Taking  the  prophecy  in  this  light,  we  cannot,  I  think, 
but  see  that  Matthew's  use  of  it  is  entirely  justified. 
The  whole  character  of  the  prophecy  leads  us  to  expect 
an  exceptional  and  wonderful  origin  for  the  child  that 
should  be  born.  All  theories  which  see  in  this  "  maiden  " 
a  person  already  married — e.  g.,  Isaiah's  own  wife — or 
one  who  is  first  to  marry,  then  become  a  mother,  break 
on  the  meaning  of  the  words  and  force  of  the  context. 
The  idea  of  a  peculiar  birth  for  the  M§ssiah  does  not 


136  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

stand  quite  alone  in  Isaiah ;  it  seems  hinted  at  in  Isaiah's 
contemporary,  Micah,  in  the  prophecy  about  the  ruler 
from  Bethlehem — "  until  the  time  come  when  she  that 
travaileth  hath  brought  forth."  *  If  any  one  chooses 
to  think  that  there  was  some  lower  or  nearer  fulfilment, 
as  in  the  distinct  incident  recorded  in  the  next  chapter 
(viii.  1-4)  of  the  birth  of  a  son  to  the  prophet  with  a 
significant  name,2  accompanied  with  like  promises  of 
the  overthrow  of  Syria  and  Ephraim,  there  is  nothing  to 
hinder.  But  that  does  not  fill  up  the  meaning  of  this 
prophecy  of  Immanuel,  nor  did  the  latter  ever  receive  its 
fulfilment  till,  as  Matthew  narrates,  Jesus  was  born  in 
Bethlehem  of  Judaea. 

It  seems  a  long  step  from  the  study  of  Old  Testament 
prophecy  in  its  relation  to  the  Virgin  Birth  to  the  place 
of  this  belief  in  the  early  Church ;  but  the  transition  is 
natural  for  the  reason  that  it  was  chiefly  by  prophecy 
that  Apologists  and  Church  Fathers  sought  to  establish 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  it  was  precisely  on  this 
point  of  the  Virgin  Birth  that  they  were  most  keenly 
assailed  by  Jewish  and  heathen  opponents.  The  subject 
is  one  which  requires  investigation,  for  it  is  a  main 
count  in  the  opposing  argument  that  the  belief  in  the 
Virgin  Birth  grew  up  late,  and  did  not  form  part  of 
the  early  tradition  of  the  Church.  I  hope  to  convince 
you  of  the  contrary. 

1  Mic.  v.  3.  2  Not  this  name,  however. 


WITNESS  OF  EARLY  CHURCH  137 

One  thing,  I  think,  is  plain  at  the  outset.  If  this 
story  of  the  miraculous  birth  is  of  late  and  gradual 
origin,  then  it  is  hopeless  to  look  for  any  consensus  about 
it  in  the  Church  of  the  earliest  period.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  find  it,  as  I  believe  we  shall,  to  be  a  firmly 
established  and  generally  accepted  article  of  faith  as  far 
back  as  we  can  trace  it,  then  the  inference  is  irresistible 
that  it  goes  back  to  Apostolic  times,  and  must  have  been 
believed  from  the  first  to  have  Apostolic  authority  and 
sanction.  To  see  this,  you  have  only,  I  think,  to  put 
yourself  in  the  situation  of  the  Church  of  that  period,— 
to  remember  that  even  at  the  close  of  the  first  century 
the  Church  was  not  yet  70  years  distant  from  the  Lord's 
crucifixion, — that  the  Gospels  containing  these  nar- 
ratives had  already  appeared,  and  been  received,  some 
30  years  earlier  than  this, — that  during  this  period  the 
Church  had  a  continuous  history,  and  successions  of 
office-bearers,1  as  well  acquainted  with  the  facts  of  its 
past,  as  we  are  with  the  prominent  events  in  our  re- 
spective Churches  during  the  last  half-century,  or  longer, 
• — that  the  Churches  of  Apostolic  and  post-Apostolic 
times  were  in  constant  communication  with  each  other, 
— that  the  Apostolic  Churches,  especially,  felt  a  re- 
sponsibility for  the  maintenance  of  a  pure  Apostolic 
tradition,2 — you  have  only,  I  say,  to  put  yourself  in 
this  situation  to  see  the  impossibility  of  foisting  a  late 
and  baseless  legend  on  these  Churches,  so  as  to  secure 
i  Cf.  II  Tim.  ii.  21.       *  Cf.  Tertullian,  On  Prescription,  36. 


138  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

general  acceptance  of  it,  and  how  vital  it  is  for  those  who 
hold  the  narratives  to  be  late  and  legendary  to  show  that 
the  Church  was  not  at  first,  or  for  long,  agreed  in  this 
belief.  That,  however,  I  am  persuaded,  it  is  impossible 
for  them  to  do.  I  feel  that  I  am  on  peculiarly  sure 
ground  here,  and  take  up  the  challenge  offered  us  with 
all  confidence. 

First,  generally,  as  against  all  assertions  of  a  late  ac- 
ceptance of  this  doctrine,  I  lay  jdown  this  position — the 
character  of  which  I  have  already  outlined — that,  apart 
from  the  Ebionites,  or  narrower  section  of  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, and  a  few  Gnostic  sects,  no  body  of  Christians  in 
early  times  is  known  to  have  existed  who  did  not  accept 
as  part  of  their  faith  the  birth  of  Jesus  from  the  Virgin 
Mary:  while,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  the  amplest 
evidence  that  this  belief  was  part  of  the  general  faith  of 
the  Church.  I  shall  give  the  proof  immediately;  but, 
for  the  general  fact,  I  do  not  need  to  go  beyond  the 
admission  of  leading  impugners  of  the  doctrine  them- 
selves. Here  is  one  testimony  from  Prof.  Harnack. 
"  It  is  certain,"  says  this  authority,  "  that  already  in 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  and  probably  soon 
after  its  beginning,  the  birth  of  Jesus  from  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  the  Virgin  Mary  formed  an  established  part 
of  the  Church  tradition."  *  Another  is  from  an  able 
Ritschlian  writer,  A.  Hering,  who,  in  a  long  article  on 
the  subject,  says :  "  It  is  a  constant,  and  we  may  truly 
1  Das  avostol.  Glaubensbekenntniss,  p.  24. 


WITNESS  OF  EARLY  CHURCH  139 

say,  universal  element  in  the  doctrinal  tradition  of  the 
post-Apostolic  age,  for  of  any  important  or  fruitful 
opposition  to  it,  the  history  of  doctrine  knows  nothing. " 
"  The  opposition  to  it,"  he  adds,  "  was  limited  to  the 
narrow  circle  of  the  Jewish  Ebionites,"  and  "  even 
among  the  Jewish  Christians  the  denial  was  not  general, 
for  the  Nazarenes  confessed  the  Virgin  Birth  of  the 
Messiah,  and  at  a  later  time  even  the  remains  of  the 
old  Ebionites  appear  to  have  shared  this  view."  *  This 
is  what  I  have  been  affirming. 

Let  us  now  look  more  closely  at  the  facts.  I  begin 
with  the  opposition  to  the  belief. 

1.  The  characteristics  of  the  Ebionites  (the 
"  Pharisaic  Ebionites,"  as  some  name  them) — the  nar- 
row, legal,  anti-Pauline  section  of  the  Jewish  Christians 
— I  formerly  described  to  you.  These  rejected  the 
supernatural  birth.  Regarding  Jesus  as  a  mere  man, 
chosen  to  be  Messiah  for  His  legal  piety,  they  affirmed 
Him  to  be  naturally  born  of  Joseph  and  Mary,2  and  cut 
out  from  their  Gospel  the  chapters  which  narrate  His 
birth  from  the  Virgin.3  Their  action,  we  must  admit, 
was  perfectly  logical.  An  Ebionitic  Christ  has  no  need 
of  a  supernatural  origin.  As  we  saw,  however,  this  ex- 
treme party  in  no  way  represented  the  whole  of  Jewish 

1  Zeitschrift  fur  Theol.  und  Kirche,  V,  p.  67. 

*Cf.  Justin,  Dial,  48;  Iren.  i.  26;  Tert.,  On  Flesh  of  Christ,  14; 
Euseb.  iii.  27.  On  Christ's  acceptance  for  His  piety,  cf.  Hippol. 
vii.  22. 

8  See  above,  pp.  44-5. 


140  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

Christianity.  What  we  must  regard  as  the  main  body 
of  Jewish  Christians — those  whom  Jerome  calls  the 
Nazarenes — were  at  one  with  the  general  mind  of  the 
Church  in  their  acceptance  of  the  Virgin  Birth. 

2.  The  other  exception  to  the  general  acceptance  of 
this  doctrine  is  in  certain  of  the  Gnostic  sects.  These 
never  were  regarded  as  properly  within  the  Church  at 
all.  Denying,  as  they  usually  did,  the  true  humanity 
of  Christ,  or  else,  like  Cerinthus,  representing  the 
earthly  Jesus  as  a  man  on  whom  the  heavenly  Christ 
descended  at  the  Baptism,  the  Gnostics  were  again 
logically  bound  to  deny  the  supernatural  birth,  though 
it  is  a  strong  testimony  to  the  hold  of  this  belief  upon 
the  Church  that,  in  fact,  only  certain  of  the  sects — and 
these  not  t»he  most  influential — seem  to  have  done  so. 
It  is  attested,  e.  g.,  that  the  Valentinians,1  the  followers 
of  Basilides,2  some  even  of  the  Docetcez  (deniers  of  the 
real  humanity),  and  others,4  accepted  in  a  fashion  of 
their  own  the  Virgin  Birth.  Those  who  did  reject  it 
were  Cerinthus,  spoken  of  already  in  connection  with 
the  Apostle  John,  the  Carpocratians,  one  of  the  most 
licentious  of  the  Gnostic  sects,  some  of  the  Ophites,  who 
revelled  in  a  crude  mythology,  and  Marcion,  who,  as  I 
told  you  before,  mutilated  the  Gospel  of  Luke  in  the 
interest  of  his  theory,  and  made  Jesus  descend  directly 

*  Hippol.  vi.  30. 
-Ibid.,  vii.  14. 
3  viii.  2. 
■  Iren.  xi.  3. 


WITNESS  OF  EARLY  CHURCH  141 

from  heaven  to  Capernaum.1  To  these  fantastic  specu- 
lators the  Fathers  of  the  time,  in  name  of  the  Church, 
with  one  voice,  opposed  themselves. 

I  come  now  to  the  main  stream  of  tradition  and  belief 
in  the  Church  of  the  second  century,  and  here  the  broad 
fact  that  meets  us — in  harmony  with  all  that  has  been 
said — is  the  universal  acceptance  of  the  Virgin  Birth, 
not  simply  as  a  truth  believed  in,  but  as  an  article  of  the 
highest  doctrinal  importance,  by  the  acceptance  of  which 
a  genuine  Christianity  is  distinguished  from  a  spurious. 
The  testimony  I  have  to  produce  is  a  single  and  undi- 
vided one;  you  can  judge  of  its  weight  for  yourselves 
when  I  set  it  before  you. 

1.  The  first  witness  I  adduce  is  naturally  the  Apostles* 
Creed  itself  in  its  older  form  and  varying  ecclesiastical 
shapes.  The  history  of  this  ancient  symbol  is  now  toler- 
ably well  known,  thanks  largely  to  the  recent  controversy 
in  Germany  on  the  subject ;  and  it  is  interesting  to  have 
it  acknowledged  by  a  writer  already  quoted,  A.  Hering, 
that  it  was,  at  bottom,  about  this  article  of  the  Virgin 
Birth  that  the  controversy  turned.2  The  Apostles'  Creed, 
it  is  commonly  recognised,  is  simply  an  expansion  or  en- 
largement of  the  older  baptismal  confession — that,  Har- 
nack  says,  is  the  thing  to  be  held  fast 3 — and  the  oldest 

1  See  above,  p.  47. 

2  Zeitschrift  fiir  Theol.  und  Kirche,  V,  p.  58. 

3  Op.  cit.,  p.  19. 


142  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

form  in  which  it  is  known  to  us — the  Old  Roman  form 
— is  dated  by  Harnack  about  140  a.  d.,1  by  Zahn  about 
120,  and  by  Kattenbusch,  a  high  authority,  about  100.2 
But  in  the  forefront  of  this  Old  Roman  Creed  stands, 
without  dispute,  the  article :  "  Who  was  born  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  the  Virgin  Mary." 

The  Old  Roman  Creed,  however,  is  not  the  whole. 
We  have  very  full  information  as  to  the  forms  which 
these  baptismal  confessions,  embodying  the  "  Rule  of 
Faith,"  as  it  came  to  be  called,  assumed  in  the  different 
Churches:  in  Gaul,  Carthage,  Alexandria,  and  other 
places ;  and  their  testimony  on  this  point  is  again  abso- 
lutely consentient.  The  importance  of  this  is  seen  when 
we  remember  that  it  was  on  this  constant  and  steadfast 
tradition  of  the  Churches  as  embodied  in  the  "  Rule  of 
Faith,"  that  the  Fathers  were  wont  to  fall  back  in  their 
controversies  with  the  Gnostics  and  others.  I  give  you 
two  illustrations — one  from  Irenseus,  and  one  from  Ter- 
tullian.  Irenceus  (c.  175),  in  Gaul,  thus  writes:  "  The 
Church,  though  dispersed  throughout  the  whole  world, 
even  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  has  received  from  the 
Apostles  and  their  disciples  this  faith.  [She  believes]  in 
One  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven  and 
earth  .  .  .  and  in  One  Christ  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God, 
who  became  incarnate  for  our  salvation;   and  in  the 

1  Hist,  of  Dogma,  II,  21.  Elsewhere,  "before  the  middle  of  the 
2d  century"  (I,  p.  157),  "not  before  Hernias,  about  135"  (I,  p. 
159),  etc. 

*Cf.  Schmiedel,  article  "Ministry"  in  Ency.  Bib.,  Ill,  p.  3122. 


WITNESS  OF  EARLY  CHURCH  143 

Holy  Spirit,  who  proclaimed  through  the  prophets  the 
dispensations  of  God,  and  the  advent,  and  the  birth 
from  a  Virgin,  and  the  passion,  and  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead,1  etc.  He  enumerates  as  uniting  in  this 
faith  the  Churches  of  Germany,  Spain,  Gaul,  the  East, 
Egypt,  Libya,  etc.  Tertullian,  of  Carthage,  a  few  years 
later,  declares  the  unity  of  the  Churches  in  Africa  with 
the  Church  of  Rome  in  their  confession  of  faith,  in- 
cluding the  article  of  the  Virgin  Birth,2  and  elsewhere 
gives  the  contents  of  the  common  Confession.  "  The 
Rule  of  Faith,"  he  says,  "  is  altogether  one,  sole,  immov- 
able, and  irreformable — namely,  to  believe  in  One  God 
Almighty,  the  Maker  of  the  world,  and  His  Son,  Jesus 
Christ,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary/'  etc.3 

2.  When  we  pass  from  the  united  testimony  of  the 
"  Rule  of  Faith "  (or  Apostles'  Creed)  to  individual 
witnesses,  we  get  fresh  confirmation  of  the  universality 
and  constancy  of  this  belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth.  One 
of  the  oldest  writers  is  Ignatius,  about  110  a.d. — a  few 
years  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John — and  no  one 
will  question  the  stress  which  Ignatius  lays  on  the  birth 
from  the  Virgin.  "  We  find,"  Harnack  says,  "  that  Ig- 
natius has  freely  reproduced  a  Kerugma  [or  preaching] 
of  Christ,  which  seems,  in  essentials,  to  be  of  a  fairly 
definite  historical  character,  and  which  contained,  inter 

1  Iren.  i.  10;  cf.  iii.  4;  iv.  35. 

2  On  Prescription,  36. 

3  Veiling  of  Virgins,  1;  cf.  On  Prescription,  13;  Against  Praneas,  2. 


144  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

alia,  the  Virgin  Birth,  Pontius  Pilate,"  *  etc.  He  speaks 
of  the  birth  from  the  Virgin  as  one  of  "  the  three  mys- 
teries of  renown,  wrought  in  the  silence  of  God."  2 
"  Stop  your  ears,"  he  says  to  the  Trallians,  "  when  any 
one  speaks  to  you  at  variance  with  Jesus  Christ,  who 
was  descended  from  David,  and  was  also  of  Mary  " ;  3 
and  to  the  Ephesians :  "  For  our  God,  Jesus  Christ,  was, 
according  to  the  appointment  of  God,  conceived  in  the 
womb  of  Mary,  of  the  seed  of  David,  but  by  the  Holy 
Ghost."  4 

In  face  of  such  a  testimony,  no  one,  I  think,  can  mis- 
construe the  fact  that  the  Virgin  Birth  does  not  happen 
to  be  mentioned  in  the  brief  Epistle  of  Polycarp  (con- 
temporary of  Ignatius),  in  Hermas,5  or  in  Barnabas. 
Ignatius  may  be  fairly  held  to  speak  for  the  sub- Apos- 
tolic age. 

After  Ignatius  we  come  to  the  Apologists;  and  here 
we  find  the  earliest  of  these,  Aristides,  about  125  a.d., 
a  Syriac  translation  of  whose  Apology  has  recently  been 
recovered,  giving  this  as  part  of  the  general  Christian 
faith  that  the  Son  of  God  "  from  a  Hebrew  Virgin  took 
and  clad  Himself  with  flesh."  Dr.  Rendel  Harris,  who 
edits  the  Apology,  says :  "  Everything  that  we  know  of 

»  The  Apostles1  Creed,  p.  59  (E.  T.).     (Distinct  from  Das  apostol. 
Glaubensbekenntniss. ) 
2  Ep.  to  Ephesians,  19. 
■  To  Trallians,  9. 

*  To  Ephesians,  18. 

*  Some,  however,  find  an  allusion  in  Hermas. 


WITNESS  OF  EARLY  CHURCH  145 

the  dogmatics  of  the  early  part  of  the  second  century 
agrees  with  the  belief  that,  at  that  period,  the  virginity 
of  Mary  was  a  part  of  the  formulated  Christian  belief." * 

A  more  important  witness  is  Justin  Martyr,  who 
wrote  about  the  middle  of  the  century,  though  his  life 
extends  through  the  whole  earlier  part  of  it.  In  his 
Apology  Justin  comes  back  again  and  again  to  the  Vir- 
gin Birth,  defending  it  from  the  objections  of  pagans,2 
and  in  his  long  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  it  forms  one  of 
the  leading  topics  of  discussion  with  the  Jew.3  The 
references  in  Justin  show  that  he  was  well  acquainted 
with  Matthew  and  Luke,  including  the  early  chapters.4 
We  are  not  surprised,  therefore,  to  find  these  Gospels, 
with  the  narratives  of  the  miraculous  birth,  included 
in  the  Diatessaron,  or  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  drawn 
up  by  his  disciple  Tatian.5 

The  testimony  of  the  Catholic  Fathers  has  been  al- 
ready referred  to,  and  will  be  further  spoken  of  below. 

3.  I  have  more  than  once  referred  to  the  attacks  of 
Jews  and  pagans  on  this  article  of  faith.6  I  may  here 
allude  to  them  again  as  themselves  furnishing  important 
evidence  of  the  place  which  this  belief  had  in  the  faith 
of  the  early  Church.     In  Justin's  argument,  the  belief 

1  Apology,  p.  25  (in  Texts  and  Studies,  1891). 

■  /  ApoL,  21,  31,  33,  46,  54,  63,  64,  etc 

>  Dial,  23,  43,  66,  84,  etc. 

«  Cf .  Westcott,  Canon,  pp.  92-3. 

•  See  above,  p.  42. 

8  Cf.  above,  pp.  5,  95. 


146  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

is  always  assumed,  on  both  sides,  as  an  unquestioned 
article  of  the  faith  of  Christians.  The  Dialogue  with 
Trypho,  however,  has  mainly  to  do  with  the  fulfilment 
of  prophecy,  and  does  not  touch  on  those  baser  calumnies 
which,  as  we  know  from  Celsus,  were  already  in  circula- 
tion in  the  second  century  among  the  Jews,  and  were 
probably  far  older — calumnies  attributing  to  Jesus  an 
illegitimate  origin,  through  the  union  of  his  mother 
(thus  in  Celsus  1)  with  a  soldier  named  Panthera.  The 
matured  form  of  these  fables  is  seen  in  the  late  Jewish 
work  ToVdoth  Jeschu — a  work,  probably,  of  the  eleventh 
century.2  These  wretched  slanders,  which,  however, 
Voltaire  served  up  as  veracious  history,  averring  the 
ToVdoth  Jeschu  to  be  a  work  of  the  first  century,3  and 
which  a  writer  like  Haeckel  in  our  own  time  is  not 
ashamed  to  reproduce,4  but  which  are  repudiated  by 
every  reputable  authority,  are  still,  in  their  own  per- 
verted way,  a  witness  to  the  belief  of  the  Church  in 
all  ages  in  Christ's  supernatural  birth.  As  Origen  re- 
torts 5 — the  Jew  of  Celsus  has  nothing  to  tell  against 
Jesus  which  is  not  based  on  the  narratives  of  the  Gos- 
pels.    The  name  Panthera  itself — or  in  its  later  Jewish 

1  Origen,  Against  Celsus,  i.  32. 

2  On  this  work,  and  the  whole  subject,  see  especially  Loofs,  Anti- 
Haeckel,  p.  44.  Cf.  also  Baring-Gould,  Lost  and  Hostile  Gospels,  chs. 
iii,  iv. 

8  Examen  de  Bolingbroke,  ch.  x.  11. 
'  Riddle  of  Universe,  ch.  xviii. 
8  Against  Celsus,  ii.  13. 


WITNESS  OF  EARLY  CHURCH  147 

shape,  Pandira — is  probably  nothing  more  than  a  cor- 
ruption of  irapOkvos,  a  Virgin.1  The  unanimity  and 
firmness  with  which  the  belief  was  held  fast  in  face  of 
the  argument  and  ridicule  of  Jewish  and  heathen  op- 
ponents only  shows  again  how  deeply  rooted  that  belief 
must  have  been. 

It  is  not,  however,  in  their  disputes  with  Jews  and 
pagans,  so  much  as  in  their  controversies  with  the 
Gnostics,  that  we  see  most  convincingly  how  tenaciously 
the  Fathers  of  the  early  Church  held  to  the  fact  of  the 
birth  from  the  Virgin,  and  what  high  value,  in  a  doc- 
trinal respect,  they  placed  upon  it.  We  have  already 
seen  that  it  was  the  fewest  number  even  of  the  Gnostics 
who  ventured  to  reject  this  doctrine;  but  it  is  now  to 
be  observed  that,  even  where,  in  deference  to  tradition, 
they  did  not  reject  it  in  words,  they  subverted  it,  as  was 
inevitable,  in  fact,  by  making  the  birth  from  Mary  a 
more  or  less  unreal  and  phantasmal  affair.2  Against 
all  such  perversions  the  Fathers  firmly  set  themselves — 
maintaining,  on  the  one  hand,  that  Jesus  had  truly  come 
in  the  flesh,  and  was  of  the  real  substance  of  Mary,3 
but,  on  the  other,  that  He  was  supernaturally  born,  and 
had  a  superhuman  dignity  and  pre-eminence  as  a  new 
beginning  in  humanity.     He  came,  as  Tertullian  said, 

1  Cf.  Swete,  Apostles1  Creed,  p.  47. 

JIren.  i.  7;  iii.  22;  Tert.,  Flesh  of  Christ,  15,  etc.;  Against  Vol., 
27;  Hippol.  vi.  30;  x.  12,  etc. 

»Iren.  iii.  19,  22;  Tert.,  Flesh  of  Christ,  15,  etc. 


148  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

"  to  consecrate  a  new  order  of  birth."  l  The  doctrine 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  was  thus  brought  into  practical  use 
as  guaranteeing,  on  the  one  side,  the  true  humanity,  but 
not  less,  on  the  other,  the  divine  Sonship  of  Jesus. 

This  is  the  ground  taken  up  by  Irenseus,  by  Ter- 
tullian,  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  by  Hippolytus,  by 
Origen — by  all  who  discuss  the  subject.  Gnosticism, 
with  its  denial,  or  explaining  away,  of  the  Virgin  Birth, 
Irenseus  speaks  of  as  a  "  system  which  neither  the 
prophets  announced,  nor  the  Lord  taught,  nor  the 
Apostles  delivered."  2  Two  of  the  headings  of  his  chap- 
ters are :  "  Jesus  Christ  was  not  a  mere  man  begotten 
from  Joseph  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  but  was 
very  God,  begotten  of  the  Father  Most  High,  and  very 
man,  born  of  the  Virgin  " — "  Christ  assumed  human 
flesh,  conceived  and  born  of  the  Virgin."  3  Here  is  a 
characteristic  passage  from  Tertullian.  I  do  not  ask 
you  to  accept  the  reasoning,  but  only  to  note  the  belief 
that  is  in  the  heart  of  it.  "  It  was  not  fit,"  he  says, 
"  that  the  Son  of  God  should  be  born  of  a  human  father's 
seed,  lest,  if  He  were  wholly  the  Son  of  Man,  He  should 
fail  to  be  also  the  Son  of  God.  ...  In  order,  there- 
fore, that  He  who  was  already  the  Son  of  God — of  God 
the  Father's  seed,  i.  e.,  the  Spirit — might  also  be  the 
Son  of  Man,  He  only  wanted  to  assume  flesh,  of  the 
flesh  of  man,  without  the  seed  of  a  man;  for  the  seed 

Flesh  of  Christ,  9.  "  Iren.  i.  8. 

s  iii.  19,  22. 


WITNESS  OF  EARLY  CHURCH  149 

of  a  man  was  unnecessary  for  One  who  had  the  seed  of 
God."  *  I  inflict  upon  you  only  one  other  sentence  from 
Origen,  interesting  because  of  the  appeal  the  Apologist 
makes  to  the  world's  knowledge  of  the  Christian  doc- 
trine. "  Moreover,"  he  says,  "  since  he  [Celsus]  fre- 
quently calls  the  Christian  doctrine  a  secret  system,  we 
must  confute  him  on  this  point  also,  since  almost  the 
entire  world  is  better  acquainted  with  what  Christians 
preach  than  with  the  favourite  opinions  of  philosophers. 
For  who  is  ignorant  of  the  statement  that  Jesus  was 
born  of  a  Virgin,  and  that  He  was  crucified,  and  that 
His  resurrection  is  an  article  of  faith  ?  "  2  etc. 

In  the  light  of  all  that  has  been  advanced,  there  can 
be  little  doubt,  I  think,  in  any  candid  mind,  as  to  the 
place  held  by  this  article  of  faith  in  the  esteem  of  the 
early  Church.  There  can,  I  should  say,  be  nearly  as  lit- 
tle hesitation  as  to  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from  so  re- 
markable a  consensus  as  to  the  solid  Apostolic  basis  of 
the  doctrine  itself.  Others  judge  differently.  To  a  sim- 
ilar marshalling  of  evidence  Lobstein  thinks  it  sufficient 
to  reply :  "  The  common  source  of  all  this  patristic  testi- 
mony is  the  double  tradition  contained  in  the  Gospels 
of  Matthew  and  Luke:  the  consensus  so  urgently  in- 
sisted upon  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  all  the 
writers  quoted  went  back  to  two  of  our  Gospels."  3  I 
might  answer  (1)  that  I  am  not  so  sure  that  all  these 

1  Flesh  of  Christ,  18.  2  Against  Celsus,  i.  7. 

»  The  Virgin  Birth,  Pref .  to  Eng.  Trans. 


150  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

writers  went  back  only  to  the  written  Gospels,  for  the 
essence  of  the  argument  of  the  Fathers  in  their  contro- 
versy with  those  who  rejected  or  wrested  the  meaning  of 
the  Gospels  was  an  appeal  to  a  tradition  of  the  Church, 
presumed  to  be  independent  of  the  Scriptures;  or  ask 
(2)  how  the  "  double  tradition  "  is  itself  to  be  accounted 
for,  since,  if  "  double,"  it  must  go  back  to  some  yet 
earlier  fact  or  belief;  or  point  out  (3)  that  it  is  surely 
no  slight  matter  that,  by  admission,  we  have  a  "  double 
tradition,"  and  the  witness  of  "  two  of  our  Gospels." 
But  I  would  specially  urge,  as  I  did  before,  that  the 
fundamental  problem  is  ignored  of  how  these  Gospels, 
if  the  stories  were  untrue,  came  to  obtain  the  universal 
and  unquestioning  acceptance  they  did  from  the  Church 
of  the  time.  I  contend  again  that  this  problem  is  in- 
soluble on  the  hypothesis  that  the  narratives  are  baseless 
legends ;  that  they  had  no  known  backing  of  truth  behind 
them.  We  shall  see  this  better  when  we  come,  as  we 
do  in  the  next  lecture,  to  consider  the  rival  legendary 
theories. 


LECTUKE    VI 

MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  ORIGIN  OF  NARRATIVES  OF  THE 
VIRGIN   BIRTH ALLEGED  HEATHEN  ANALOGIES 

I  have  said  that  it  is  not  enough  for  the  objector  to 
deny  the  historical  character  of  the  narratives  of  the 
Virgin  Birth.  He  must  find  some  method  of  explaining 
how  the  narratives  come  to  be  there.  It  will  be  my  task 
in  this  lecture  to  consider  the  rival  explanations  of  these 
narratives  offered  by  those  who  reject  the  historical  fact. 

It  is  plain  that,  if  the  Virgin  Birth  is  not  a  reality, 
the  story  of  it  can  only  be  myth,  legend,  or  invention — 
a  myth  somehow  hit  upon  independently  by  two  of  the 
Evangelists.  There  are  two  ways  open  to  us,  accord- 
ingly, of  establishing  the  Lord's  birth  from  the  Virgin 
— first,  by  exhibiting  the  direct  evidence  for  the  fact, 
which  is  what  I  have  been  trying  to  do ;  and,  second,  by 
showing  the  untenableness  of  the  rival  explanations, 
which  is  what  I  am  about  to  attempt.  My  task  is  not 
an  easy  one,  if  only  from  the  number  of  the  theories, 
and  the  fact  that  they  are,  for  the  most  part,  irrecon- 
cilably at  variance  with  each  other ;  though  there  is  the 
compensating  advantage  that  one  has  seldom  to  travel 
further  for  the  confutation  of  any  one  of  these  theories 

151 


152  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

than  simply  the  objections  urged  against  it  by  the  rest. 
This  is  a  point  in  our  favour.  The  Church,  at  least,  it 
can  fairly  be  pleaded,  has  always  had  one  consistent 
story  to  tell  on  the  Lord's  birth.  The  theories  that  op- 
pose the  Virgin  Birth  are  legion,  and  in  entire  disagree- 
ment with  each  other.  As  in  the  trial  of  Jesus  before 
the  Sanhedrim,  "  neither  so  did  their  witness  agree  to- 
gether." J 

There  are  certain  considerations  which  may  be  urged 
against  the  class  of  mythical  theories  generally,  as:  (1) 
that  the  time  is  wanting  for  the  myth  to  grow  up — for 
we  have  never  to  forget  that  the  Gospels  we  are  dealing 
with  had  their  origin  at  latest  by  70  or  80  a.d.  ;  (2)  that 
most  of  the  theories  can  be  shown  to  be  inherently  im- 
possible, or  impossible  in  the  circumstances — as  when, 
e.g.,  parallels  are  sought  in  Buddhism;  and  (3)  not 
least,  even  assuming  it  possible  for  the  myth  to  origi- 
nate, there  is  the  difficulty  of  showing  how  it  could  ever 
have  got  access  to  Jewish  minds,  and  obtained  general 
acceptance.  I  mention  these  things  here  only  that  you 
may  keep  their  application  before  your  minds  in  the 
subsequent  discussion. 

There  are,  as  we  have  already  seen,  two  main  groups 

of  theories  on  this  subject — one  which  seeks  the  origin 

of  the  alleged  myth  on  Jewish  soil,  and  excludes  Gentile 

influences;  the  other,  now  the  more  prevalent,  which 

1  Mark  xiv.  59. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  NARRATIVES  153 

seeks  to  explain  the  rise  of  the  myth  from  Gentile 
sources,  and  either  excludes  Jewish  influences  alto- 
gether, or  assigns  to  them  a  quite  subordinate  role.  The 
conflict  of  these  two  classes  of  theories  affords  a  pre- 
liminary illustration  of  what  I  have  above  said  about 
radical  disagreement.  I  may  give  one  or  two  samples. 
Harnack,  like  Lobstein,  insists  quite  positively  that  "  the 
belief  that  Jesus  was  born  of  a  Virgin  sprang  from  Is. 
vii.  14."  "  It  is  in  point  of  method/'  he  says,  "  not  per- 
missible to  stray  so  far  [as  in  the  Gentile  theories], 
when  we  have  near  at  hand  such  a  complete  explanation 
as  Is.  vii.  14."  '  Now  hear  the  other  side.  "  This  at 
any  rate,"  says  Soltau,  "  is  clear :  the  belief  in  the  Vir- 
gin Birth  of  Jesus  could  not  have  originated  in  Pales- 
tine ;  anyhow,  it  could  never  have  taken  its  rise  in  Jew- 
ish circles.  .  .  .  The  idea  that  the  Holy  Spirit  begat 
Jesus  can  have  no  other  than  a  Hellenic  origin.  .  .  . 
The  Virgin  Birth,  in  particular,  was  certainly  not  first 
inferred  from  the  words  of  the  prophet  Isaiah  in  vii. 
14."  2  In  the  same  strain  writes  Dr.  Cheyne :  "  It  has 
been  too  much  overlooked  that  the  mistranslation  of  ha- 
falmah  in  the  LXX  is  so  far  from  accounting  for  the  be- 
lief in  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ  that  it  requires  to  be 
explained  itself,"  3  and  he  finds  the  explanation,  as  he 
does  that  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  in  Babylonian  influence. 

« Hist,  of  Dogma,  I,  p.  100. 

*Geburtsgeschichte,  pp.  23-5  (E.  T.,  pp.  47,  48,  51). 

*  Bible  Problems,  p.  193. 


154  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

Schmiedel,  Usener,  and  others,  express  themselves,  as 
we  shall  see  later,  with  like  decision.  But  now  the  advo- 
cates of  the  Gentile  origin  have  the  heavy  guns  of  Har- 
nack  and  his  friends  turned  upon  them.  "  The  con- 
jecture of  Usener,"  says  Harnack,  "that  the  idea  of 
the  birth  from  a  Virgin  is  a  heathen  myth  which  was 
received  by  the  Christians,  contradicts  the  entire  earliest 
development  of  Christian  tradition,  which  is  free  from 
heathen  myths,  so  far  as  these  had  not  already  been 
received  by  wide  circles  of  Jews  (above  all  certain 
Babylonian  and  Persian  myths),  which  in  the  case  of 
that  idea  is  not  demonstrable."  *  We  shall  hear  more 
of  this  also  as  we  proceed.  The  two  groups  of  views  are 
thus  in  direct  opposition.  One  confutes  the  other.  Un- 
der each  head  are  numerous  sub-theories — all  equally 
irreconcilable  with  each  other. 

I  have  already  sought  to  show  the  difficulties  which 
attach  to  the  theory  of  an  origin  of  the  idea  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  on  Jewish  soil,  or  from  Is.  vii.  14.  Lob- 
stein  thinks,  indeed,  that  nothing  was  easier  than  to  pass 
from  the  case  of  children  promised  by  God — e.  g.,  Isaac 
— to  the  idea  of  birth  from  a  Virgin.2  But  it  is  pre- 
cisely the  taking  of  this  remarkable  step  which  is  so 
difficult  to  explain.  The  severely  monotheistic  Jewish 
idea  of  God  tended  to  separate  Him  from  the  world  as 
heathen  conceptions  of  God  did  not ;  and  it  was  the  un- 

•  Hist,  of  Dogma,  I,  p.  100.     Cf.  Lobstein,  pp.  76,  128. 
2  Op.  cit.,  p.  71. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF   NARRATIVES  155 

likeliest  thing  to  enter  a  Jewish  mind  that  God's  direct 
agency  would  be  employed  in  causing  a  Jewish  maiden 
to  become  a  mother.  Some,  I  know,  have  seen  in  the 
story  the  influence  of  an  ascetic  motive,  such  as,  e.  g., 
had  made  itself  felt  among  the  Essenes.1  Lobstein, 
however,  rightly  rejects  the  idea  that  any  ascetic  motive 
was  active  here,  and  points  out  that  there  is  not  the 
slightest  trace  of  such  in  the  narrative,  or  in  the  life  of 
Jesus.2  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  one  sect  which 
did  reject  the  Virgin  Birth  was  a  Jewish  one  —  the 
Ebionites.  It  is  not  on  soil  of  this  description,  there- 
fore, that  we  can  look  for  the  development  of  a  myth  of 
the  Virgin  Birth. 

Without  further  dwelling  on  considerations  which 
have  been  sufficiently  emphasised,  I  shall  now  endeavour 
to  illustrate  the  difficulties  which  arise  in  seeking  to 
carry  through  a  theory  of  the  Jewish  origin  of  this  sup- 
posed myth  by  looking  at  some  of  the  special  forms 
which  the  theory  assumes. 

The  general  conception  in  these  theories  is  something 
like  this.  At  the  basis  of  the  whole  is  the  powerful  im- 
pression made  by  Jesus  on  His  disciples,  which  led  them 
to  accept  Him  as  Son  of  God  and  Messiah.  This  being 
given,  the  need  was  soon  felt  of  explaining  the  origin 
and  the  secret  of  the  spiritual  power  of  One  so  remark- 

1  Thus  Keim,  Jesus  of  Nazara,  II,  p.  59. 
« Op.  cit.,  p.  130. 


156  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

able.  Hence  the  rise  of  different  modes  of  explanation. 
1.  The  first  and  simplest  was  that  suggested  by  the  nar- 
rative of  the  Baptism.  The  descent  of  the  Spirit  on 
Jesus  at  His  baptism  constituted  Him  the  "  Son  of 
God  "  in  the  theocratic  sense.  For  our  present  purpose 
this  may  be  set  aside.  2.  A  second  and  more  realistic 
explanation  was  the  naive  one  of  an  actual  paternity  of 
God — a  physical  filiation — such  as  is  alleged  to  be  given 
the  narratives  of  the  supernatural  birth  in  Matthew  and 
Luke.  This  is  supposed  to  have  had  its  germ  in  a  mis- 
understanding of  Is.  vii.  14.  3.  The  third  and  highest 
form  of  explanation  was  that  of  a  metaphysical  pre- 
existence,  and  descent  into  humanity,  such  as  we  find 
in  Paul  and  John.  Lobstein  gives  the  stages  a  little 
differently:  1.  The  theocratic  conception — Jesus  the 
Messiah ;  2.  The  metaphysical ;  and  3.  The  miraculous 
birth.1 

So  far  everything  seems  plain,  though,  of  course,  the 
vital  element  of  proof  is  wanting  that  the  narrative  of 
the  Virgin  Birth  is  myth#  at  all.  But,  waiving  mean- 
while other  objections,  I  would  Hx  attention  on  one 
crucial  question:  At  what  point  in  the  development  of 
early  Christianity  is  this  myth  of  the  Virgin  Birth  sup- 
posed to  come  in  ? 

1.  Looking  to  the  narratives  themselves,  the  first  and 

1  Op.  cit.,  pp.  59ff.  Cf.  Keim,  and  Godet's  criticism  in  his  Com. 
on  Luke,  I,  pp.  157/f.  Bornemann  gives  yet  another  form:  1. 
Supernatural  birth;  2.  Pre-existence  theory  (Paul);  3.  Incarnation 
of  Logos  (John),  (Unterricht,  p.  92). 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  NARRATIVES  157 

most  natural  thing  to  say  would  be  that  the  myth  must 
come  in  early.  The  narratives,  as  we  saw,  are  extremely 
primitive  and  naive  in  idea  and  structure.  They  betray 
not  the  slightest  trace  of  the  influence  of  Paul  or  John. 
The  language  and  style  of  Luke,  who  is  taken  to  be  the 
later  of  the  two  writers,  carry  us  back  into  Jewish- 
Christian  circles  of  the  most  primitive  type.  The  myth, 
therefore,  it  would  seem,  represents  the  earliest  stage  in 
the  formation  of  a  Christology.  It  must  be  prior  to 
Paul's  Christological  doctrine — so  early  at  least  as  to  be 
absolutely  uninfluenced  by  the  latter.  This,  I  say,  is 
the  simplest  and  most  natural  form  of  the  theory,  but 
you  must  see  at  once  the  immense  difficulty  in  which  it 
lands  us.  The  difficulty  is  the  manifest  impossibility 
of  explaining  the  rise  and  acceptance  of  such  a  myth 
within  so  short  an  interval  as,  say,  25  or  30  years  after 
the  death  of  Christ.  During  the  greater  part  of  this 
time  the  Apostles,  or  most  of  them,  were  still  at  Jerusa- 
lem. In  any  case,  if  such  a  myth  was  in  process  of 
formation,  and  was  taking  root  in  the  convictions  of  any 
important  section  of  the  Church,  it  is  impossible  that 
Paul  and  other  early  preachers  of  the  Gospel  should  not 
have  heard  of  it.  But  it  is  a  leading  point  in  the  case 
of  the  opponents  that  Paul  and  the  other  Apostles  and 
teachers  of  that  period  did  not  know  of  it.  To  the  gen- 
eral difficulty  of  explaining  how  such  a  myth  should 
arise  on  Jewish  soil  at  all,  there  is  added,  in  this  form 
of  the  theory,  an  insuperable  difficulty  of  time. 


158  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

2.  This  first  form  of  the  theory,  therefore,  which  puts 
the  origin  of  the  myth  of  the  Virgin  Birth  in  the  prim- 
itive period,  before  the  preaching  of  Paul,  has  to  he 
abandoned.  Lobstein  does  abandon  it,  and,  driven 
by  the  difficulty  I  have  mentioned,  takes  the  origin  of 
this  myth  to  be,  not  even  the  second  stage — the  "  theo- 
cratic "  being  the  first — but  the  third  stage  in  the  de- 
velopment, after  the  "  metaphysical."  The  idea  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  comes  in,  in  his  view,  between  Paul  and 
John.  "  Between  the  primitive  outlook  of  popular  Mes- 
sianic belief,"  he  says,  "  and  the  point  reached  by  specu- 
lative thought  in  the  Prologue  to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  we 
may  place  the  tradition  which  has  been  preserved  in  the 
double  narrative  of  the  Protevangel."  1  Lobstein,  in- 
deed, is  not  entirely  consistent  in  this  view,  for  in  an- 
other place  he  says :  "  It  is  by  no  means  proved  that  the 
origin  of  the  latter  solution  [the  Virgin  Birth]  is  sub- 
sequent to  the  elaboration  of  the  theory  of  the  pre-exist- 
ence,  for  Matthew  and  Luke  only  received  and  set  down 
in  writing  far  older  traditions."  2  But  then,  if  this  is 
so,  we  are  back  to  a  date  of  origin  for  this  story  in  its 
twofold  form  earlier  than  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  i.  e., 
within  less  than  20  years  from  the  Crucifixion — a  form 
of  theory  we  have  just  seen  to  be  inadmissible.    If  "  far 

1  Op.  tit.,  p.  65. 

5  p.  78;  cf.  p.  26.  This,  of  course,  if  accepted,  would  dispose  of 
Lobstein's  other  assertion  (see  above,  p.  149),  that  the  Church  Fathers 
of  the  2d  century  must  have  drawn  all  their  knowledge  from  our 
Gospels. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  NARRATIVES         159 

older  traditions  "  of  the  Virgin  Birth  existed,  how  ex- 
plain their  origin,  or  the  alleged  ignorance  of  the  Apos- 
tles about  them  ? 

But  now  take  the  other  view,  that  the  myth  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  originated  not  earlier  than,  but  concur- 
rently with,  or  possibly  subsequent  to,  the  Pauline 
"  metaphysical "  theory,  as,  in  Lobstein's  words,  "  a 
more  concrete  and  realistic  "  solution  of  "  the  Christo- 
logical  problem,"  !  are  we  free  from  difficulties  ?  I  fear 
not.    The  difficulties  only  thicken. 

(1)  To  begin  with,  the  question  has  to  be  asked:  Do 
myths  arise  as  the  solution  of  "  Christological,"  or  of 
any  kind  of  problems?  If  they  do,  I  can  only  say  I 
have  never  heard  of  them.  Prof.  Lobstein  really  cannot 
have  it  both  ways.  He  cannot  both  have  this  myth  grow- 
ing up  before  Paul's  teaching,  and  at  the  same  time 
growing  up  along  with  it,  or  after  it;  and  he  cannot 
both  have  it  as  "  a  fruit  of  popular  imagination,"  2  "  the 
fruit  of  religious  feeling,  the  echo  of  Christian  experi- 
ence, the  poetic  and  popular  expression  of  an  affirmation 
of  faith,"  3  a  "  pastoral  epic  of  Christianity,"  4  which 
are  some  of  his  ways  of  describing  it,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  a  somewhat  advanced  "  explanatory  formula,  an 
attempt  to  solve  the  Christological  problem,"  5  which 
is  his  other  account  of  it.  Poetry  is  one  thing;  ex- 
planatory formulas,  reflective  attempts  at  the  solution 

» pp.  66,  72.  « p.  72.  ■  p.  96. 

8  p.  77.  « p.  72. 


160  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

of  "  problems,"  are  another  kind  of  thing  altogether. 
The  theory  is  here  incoherent.  If  this,  which  Lobstein 
calls  "  the  tradition  consecrated  by  our  Gospels,  the  myth 
with  which  faith  in  the  divine  Sonship  of  Jesus  is 
poetically  invested,"  1  is  something  consciously  framed 
for  "  explanatory  "  purposes,  then  it  is  no  poetic  myth 
at  all :  it  is  a  fruit,  not  of  imagination,  but  of  invention. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  Lobstein' s  meaning  is  that  the 
narratives  in  Matthew  and  Luke  are  simply  given  forth 
as  "  poetry,"  expressions  of  ideas  poetically  conceived, 
not  as  reality,  they  are  still,  in  that  case,  neither 
"  myths  "  nor  "  explanatory  formulas  " :  moreover, 
such  an  explanation  conflicts  in  the  clearest  way  with 
the  nature  of  the  narratives,  for  these,  unquestionably, 
are  given  forth,  not  as  poetic  fictions,  but  as  facts  to  be 
seriously  believed.2 

(2)  Lobstein,  however,  has  other  difficulties  to  face, 
if  he  adheres  to  his  contention  that  his  poetic-explana- 
tory "  myth "  originated  concurrently  with  Paul's 
"  metaphysical "  theory,  and  ran  its  course  independ- 
ently of  it.  It  is  assumed  by  Lobstein,  as  it  was  by 
Keim,  that  the  idea  of  the  supernatural  birth,  and  Paul's 
pre-existence  doctrine,  are  conceptions  which  exclude 
each  other.  This,  of  course,  is  not  the  case ;  but  whether 
they  are,  or  are  not,  compatible,  how  are  we  to  explain 

1  p.  75.     Cf.  p.  77:  "The  dogma  or  myth  inspired  by  religious 
faith,  created  by  popular  imagination."     "Dogma"  or  "myth"! 

2  Cf .  the  remarks  on  this  point  in  Sweet's  Birth  and  Infancy  of 
Jesus  Christ,  pp.  104-5. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  NARRATIVES  161 

their  development  side  by  side  without  mutual  contact 
or  influence  ?  It  is  too  often  forgotten  that  Paul's  doc- 
trine was  not  a  private  speculation  of  the  Apostle's,  but, 
as  his  Epistles  show,  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Church. 
The  Strassburg  theologian  Reuss  may  be  quoted  on  this 
point.  "  We  may  here  observe,"  he  says,  "  that  the 
writings  of  Paul,  which  carry  us  back,  so  to  speak,  into 
the  very  cradle  of  the  Church,  contain  nothing  to  indi- 
cate that  their  Christological  doctrine,  so  different  from 
that  of  common  Ebionitism,  was  regarded  as  an  innova- 
tion, or  gave  rise  to  any  disputations  at  the  time  of  its 
first  appearance."  *  This  doctrine,  then,  could  not  but 
have  been  known  to  the  originators  of  the  myth  of  the 
supernatural  birth.  On  the  other  hand,  the  growing 
myth  must  already  by  Paul's  time  have  assumed  a  toler- 
ably developed  form.  It  rested,  Lobstein  has  told  us, 
on  "  far  older  tradition,"  and  was  accessible  to  Paul's 
companion  Luke,  who  thought  so  much  of  it,  and  was 
so  little  conscious  of  contradiction  to  Paul's  doctrine  in 
it,  that  he  put  it  in  the  forefront  of  his  Gospel.  It  could 
not,  therefore,  be  kept  wholly  from  the  knowledge  of 
Paul.  This  paradox  is  so  glaring  that  even  Lobstein 
does  not  attempt  to  defend  it.  He  allows  that  perhaps 
Paul  did  know  of  the  story,  but  it  had  no  interest  for 
him :  "  he  did  not  feel  the  need  of  seeking  any  sub- 
sidiary solution."  2     This,  however,  is  a  large,  and,  as 

*  Hist,  of  Christ.  Theol.,  I,  p.  397  (E.  T.). 
2  Op.  cit.,  p.  65. 


162  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

we  shall  see,  untenable  assumption ;  and  really  gives  up 
the  assertion,  on  which  so  much  is  based,  that  Paul  was 
wholly  ignorant  of  the  Virgin  Birth. 

(3)  But  even  yet  Lobstein  is  not  at  the  end  of  his 
troubles.  The  time  difficulty  comes  back,  and  the  critics 
are  not  slow  to  point  out  that,  even  with  the  extension 
of  the  period  for  the  formation  of  the  myth  to  Paul's 
time,  we  are  still  barely  30  years  from  the  origin  of  the 
Church,  and  that  a  myth  so  fully  formed  and  complex 
could  not  grow  up  and  find  acceptance  in  that  brief 
space — least  of  all  in  a  Church  in  which  Apostles  and 
disciples  of  the  first  generation,  including  relatives  of 
Christ  Himself  (e.  g.,  James  the  Lord's  brother)  were 
yet  present.  Is  it  conceivable  that  myths  so  baseless, 
and,  if  myths,  so  compromising  to  Mary's  honour, 
should  find  admission  into  such  communities  ?  There  is 
but  one  escape  from  the  difficulty.  We  must  push  down 
the  formation  of  the  myth  later  still — must  put  it,  as 
Keim  did,  earlier,1  as  Pfleiderer,  Soltau,  Usener,  and 
many  others  do  now,  after  Paul,  and  even  after  John, 
with  his  Logos  doctrine.  I  only  remark  here  that  the 
rock  on  which  this  form  of  hypothesis  infallibly  splits 
is  the  date  of  the  Gospels.  It  can  only  be  defended  by 
the  help  of  theories  of  the  late  origin  and  wholesale  inter- 
polation of  the  records  which  no  sound  criticism  can 
justify. 

The  theory  of  a  purely  Jewish  origin  of  the  myth 
1  Jesus  of  Nazara,  II,  p.  45. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  NARRATIVES  163 

must,  therefore,  with  consent  of  the  newer  scholars,  be 
definitely  surrendered.  If  this  is  given  up,  it  is  unneces- 
sary to  delay  on  theories  of  a  more  mixed  kind — theories, 
e.  g.,  like  Mr.  F.  C.  Conybeare's,  that  the  germ  of  the 
idea  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  to  be  found  in  the  allegor- 
isings  of  Philo.1  He  will  be  a  skilful  person  who  can 
discern  any  trace  of  Philonic  influence  in  the  narratives 
of  either  Matthew  or  Luke. 

I  turn,  then,  as  a  next  step,  to  theories  of  a  purely 
Gentile  origin  for  the  alleged  myth  of  the  Virgin  Birth. 
Let  me,  at  the  risk  of  repetition,  give  you  one  or  two 
further  examples  of  the  grounds  on  which  this  new 
method  is  adopted,  that  we  may  have  the  whole  case 
clearly  before  us.  "  Here,"  says  Usener,  in  his  article 
"  Nativity  "  in  the  Encyclopcedia  Biblica,  "  we  unques- 
tionably enter  the  circle  of  pagan  ideas."  "  However 
freely  the  Old  Testament  may  speak  of  sons  of  God  in 
the  figurative  sense,"  says  Schmiedel,  in  his  article 
"  Mary  "  in  the  same  work,  "  the  loftiness  of  the  Old 
Testament  conception  of  God  precludes  the  supposition 
of  physical  Sonship.  .  .  .  Nor  would  Is.  vii.  14  have 
been  sufficient  to  account  for  the  origin  of  such  a  doc- 
trine unless  the  doctrine  had  commended  itself  on  its 
own  merits.  The  passage  was  adduced  only  as  an  after- 
thought, in  confirmation.   .  .  .   Thus  the  origin  of  the 

1  See  Machen,  Princeton  Theol.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1906,  p.  72.     Cf.  Gore, 
Dissertations,  p.  61. 


164  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

idea  of  a  Virgin  Birth  is  to  be  sought  for  in  Gentile 
Christian  circles."  "  It  has  long  been  seen,"  says 
Gunkel,  "  that  the  representation  [in  Luke]  is  quite 
foreign  to  pure  Judaism :  the  Judaism  which  comes  from 
the  Old  Testament,  it  is  rightly  said,  knows  of  a  miracu- 
lous creation  (Erschaffung)  of  the  child,  but  not  of  a 
miraculous  begetting  through  a  divine  factor."  *  He 
instances  Gen.  vi.  as  showing  the  horror  at  the  idea  of 
a  mingling  of  the  sons  of  God  with  men.  You  observe 
how  decisively,  in  all  these  writers,  the  idea  of  a  Jewish 
origin  is  set  aside. 

It  is  to  be  owned  that,  in  this  new  type  of  theory,  we 
seem,  at  first  sight,  to  be  on  more  hopeful  ground.  On 
heathen  soil  the  line  between  gods  and  men  is  ever  a 
wavering  one :  there  is  a  freer  mingling  of  the  two  orders. 
In  heathenism,  accordingly,  there  is  a  tendency,  which 
the  Jews,  with  their  loftier  monotheism,  did  not  so 
strongly  share,  to  seek  a  godlike  origin  for  godlike  or 
distinguished  men.  The  greatness  of  a  hero  is  explained 
by  the  presence  of  a  divine  element  in  him ;  then  a  cause 
is  sought  for  this  in  some  theory  of  origin,  or  incarna- 
tion, or  indwelling  of  a  divine  genius.  As  forms  of  this 
tendency,  you  have  such  things  in  heathenism  as  the 
raising  of  kings  and  heroes  to  divine  rank — apotheosis 
— as  in  the  deification  of  the  Roman  emperors,  which, 
however,  has  nothing  to  do  with  origin;  or  you  have 
incarnations  of  the  gods  in  beasts,  as  in  the  Apis-bulls 
1  Op.  cit.,  p.  66. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  NARRATIVES         165 

of  Egypt — a  form  of  the  animal  worship  of  that  country 
— but  sometimes  also  incarnations  in  men,  as  in  some 
of  the  Avatars  of  Vishnu,  or  the  incarnations  of 
Buddha ;  or,  lastly,  you  have  the  coarser  idea  of  the  gods 
begetting  men,  as  in  the  ordinary  pagan  mythology.  It 
would  be  easy  to  show,  and  I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer 
to  it  again,  how  far  the  so-called  "  incarnations  "  of 
heathenism  differ  in  idea,  in  spirit,  in  their  total  mean- 
ing, from  the  Christian  conception.1  But  I  confine  my- 
self at  present  to  the  alleged  analogies  to  the  idea  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  on  the  soil  of  paganism.  And  here  the 
question  I  propose  to  ask  is  the  very  pertinent  one :  Do 
we  as  a  matter  of  fact  find,  or  where  do  we  find,  the 
idea  of  a  divine  origin  of  heroes  or  great  men  taking 
the  form  of  a  virgin  birth,  analogous  to  what  we  have 
in  the  Gospels  1  I  shall  seek  to  answer  this  question  by 
showing,  first,  that  nowhere  in  heathenism  do  we  find 
this  idea;  and  next,  that,  even  supposing  the  idea  to 
be  there  (as  I  affirm  it  is  not),  no  channels  can  be 
pointed  out  by  which  it  could  find  entrance  into  the 
minds  of  the  writers  of  the  Gospels,  or  into  the  circles 
in  which  they  moved,  with  any  hope  of  acceptance.  Im- 
pure fables  we  shall  find  in  abundance,  but  no  clear 
instance  of  a  pure  birth  from  a  Virgin. 

On  this  general  question  of  pagan  mythology,  let  me 
only  premise  two  things : — 

1.  I  would  remark  that  we  need  not  wholly  reject  the 
i  See  below,  pp.  216-17. 


166  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

idea  underlying  even  these  heathen  myths.  Vile  as 
many  of  them  are,  they  have  a  value  as  showing  the 
natural  workings  of  men's  minds — the  universality  of 
the  instinct  which  connects  superhuman  greatness  with  a 
divine  origin  ' — and  may  be  construed  in  our  favour  as 
leading  us  to  expect  that,  if  there  is  a  real  incarnation, 
it  will  be  accompanied  by  a  miraculous  origin.  Thus 
far  the  argument  of  some  of  the  Church  Fathers  was 
justified,  when  they  pleaded  that  the  heathen  were  the 
last  who  should  object  to  the  Virgin  Birth,  since  their 
own  mythology  was  full  of  stories  of  births  from  gods 
and  goddesses.2  The  argument  was  a  double-edged  one, 
and  its  other  edge  is  seen  in  the  attempts  now  made  to 
show  that  the  Christian  story  is  a  product  of  the  same 
myth-forming  tendency  which  gave  rise  to  the  heathen 
fables;  but  it  was  a  very  natural  one  for  the  Fathers 
in  their  situation  to  use,  and  they  never  failed,  at  the 
same  time,  to  denounce  these  pagan  myths  as  vile  tales 
and  wholly  fabulous.3 

2.  The  other  point  I  would  remark  upon  is  the  utter 
absence  of  the  historical  element  in  these  heathen  myths, 
in  which  the  contrast  between  them  and  the  Gospel  nar- 
ratives is  so  obvious.  The  Gospels  refer  to  events  which 
happened  in  the  immediate  past — within  a  generation 

1  Cf.  Gore,  Dissertations,  pp.  57,  59-60. 

2  Justin,  /  Apol.,  21,  22,  54,  64;  Dial.,  70;  Origen,  Against  Celsus, 
i.  37. 

'  Justin,  /  Apol.,  21,  64;  Tert.,  Apol,  12,  15,  21;  Origen,  i.  37,  etc. 
See  below,  p.  169. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  NARRATIVES  167 

or  two  of  the  time  when  the  accounts  of  them  were  pub- 
lished. They  relate  to  an  historical  Person,  and  are 
given,  as  we  saw,  in  a  historical  setting,  with  circum- 
stantial details  of  name,  place,  date,  etc.  The  myths 
with  which  they  are  brought  into  comparisons-Greek, 
Roman,  Babylonian,  Persian — show  nothing  of  this 
kind.  They  are  on  the  face  of  them  quite  unhistorical 
— vague,  formless,  timeless ;  their  origin  lies  far  back  in 
the  dawn  of  time,  mostly  in  the  poetical  personification 
of  natural  phenomena.1  It  is  surely  plain  the  compari- 
son of  things  so  different  can  only  mislead.  Parallels 
and  analogies  sought  between  them  can  only  breed  con- 
fusion. 

With  respect  now  to  my  main  contention,  it  must 
strike  you,  I  know,  as  strange  to  hear  that  the  heathen 
world  has  no  proper  doctrine  of  a  Virgin  Birth — so 
continually  are  you  told  that  pagan  mythology  is  full  of 
parallels  of  this  kind ;  that  "  parthenogenesis  was  t  in  the 
air  '  " ;  2  that,  as  Mr.  Conybeare  declares,  "  there  was  in 
that  age  a  general  belief  that  superhuman  personages 
and  great  religious  teachers  were  born  of  virgin  mothers 
through  divine  agency. "  3    lam  confident,  however,  that 

1  Speaking  of  Mithraism,  Prof.  Dill  says:  "One  great  weakness  of 
Mithraism  lay  precisely  here  —  that,  in  place  of  the  narrative  of  a 
divine  life,  instinct  with  human  sympathy,  it  had  only  to  offer  the 
cold  symbolism  of  a  cosmic  legend"  (Nero  to  Mar.  Aurelius,  p.  622). 

2  Cf.  Machen,  Princeton  Theol.  Review,  Jan.,  1906,  p.  72. 
•Ibid. 


168  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

I  can  make  good  my  case,  and  only  ask  you  not  unthink- 
ingly to  accept  these  assertions,  but  to  inquire  with  me 
where  the  proof  is  to  be  found  of  them. 

Let  us  look  in  order  at  the  main  heads  of  the  sup- 
posed analogy. 

1.  The  nearest  source  which  suggests  itself  for  the 
idea  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  the  popular  mythological 
conceptions  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans.  It  is  these 
chiefly — the  fables  of  Hermes,  of  Dionysus,  of  iEscu- 
lapius,  of  Hercules,  and  the  like  —  which  the  Church 
fathers  had  in  view,  and  it  is  to  these  that  writers  of  the 
standing  of  Holtzmann,1  Schmiedel,  and  Usener  bid  us 
look.  But  surely  to  urge  these  coarse  fables  as  analogies 
to  the  story  of  the  Gospels  is  to  show  a  strange  blindness 
to  the  facts  of  the  case.  It  is  the  fact  that  not  one  of 
these  tales  has  to  do  with  a  Virgin  Birth  in  the  sense  in 
which  alone  we  are  here  concerned  with  it.  The  gods 
of  whom  these  impure  scandals  are  narrated  are  con- 
ceived of  as  beings  like  in  form,  parts,  and  passions,  to 
mortal  men.  If  they  beget  children,  it  is  after  a  carnal 
manner.  A  god,  inflamed  by  lust — Zeus  is  a  chief  sin- 
ner— surprises  a  maiden,  and  has  a  child  by  her,  but  it 
is  by  natural  generation.  There  is  nothing  here  analo- 
gous to  the  Virgin  Birth  of  the  Gospels.     The  stories 

1Machen  quotes  Holtzmann:  "These  heathen  representations  of 
the  coming  of  the  great  from  above  needed  only  to  strip  off  their 
coarsely  sensuous  forms  in  order  to  be  transferred  to  the  world- 
conquering  Son  of  God  in  the  East"  (as  above). 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  NARRATIVES  169 

themselves  are  incredibly  vile.1  The  better-minded  in 
Greece  and  Rome  were  ashamed  of  them.  Plato  would 
have  them  banished  from  his  Republic.  They  were,  as 
Tertullian  tells  us,  the  subjects  of  public  ridicule.2  It 
is  a  strange  imagination  that  can  suppose  that  these  foul 
tales  could  be  taken  over  by  the  Church,  and,  in  the 
short  space  before  the  composition  of  our  Gospels,  be- 
come the  inspiration  of  the  beautiful  and  chaste  narra- 
tives of  Matthew  and  Luke ! 

Let  me  only  give  you  two  short  quotations  to  show 
how  the  early  Church  writers,  who  had  to  do  with  this 
sort  of  argument,  dealt  with  it,  and  how  sensible  they 
were  of  the  contrast.  "  God's  own  Son,"  says  Tertullian, 
"  was  born, — but  not  so  born  as  to  make  Him  ashamed 
of  the  name  of  Son  or  of  His  paternal  origin.  It  was 
not  His  lot  to  have  as  His  father,  by  incest  with  a  sister, 
or  by  violation  of  a  daughter,  or  another's  wife,  a  god 
in  the  shape  of  a  serpent,  or  ox,  or  bird,  or  lover,  for 
his  vile  ends  transforming  himself  into  the  gold  of 
Danaus.  These  are  your  divinities  upon  whom  these 
base  deeds  of  Jupiter  were  done." 3  Origen  says : 
"  Since  Celsus  has  introduced  the  Jew  disputing  with 
Jesus,  and  tearing  in  pieces,  as  he  imagines,  the  fiction 
of  His  birth  from  a  Virgin,  comparing  the  Greek  fables 
about  Danae,  and  Melanippe,  and  Auge,  and  Antiope, 

1  The  stories  cannot  be  reproduced  here,  but  may  be  seen  in  any 
good  classical  dictionary. 

3Apol,  15.  'Ibid.,  21. 


170  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

our  answer  is  that  such  language  becomes  a  buffoon 
and  not  one  who  is  writing  in  a  serious  tone."  1 

2.  Take,  next,  the  fables  set  afloat  about  a  philosopher 
like  Plato ,  or  rulers  like  Alexander  or  Augustus,  to 
which  we  are  sometimes  referred.  In  point  of  fact,  the 
fathers  and  mothers  of  these  personages  were  perfectly 
well  known,  and  the  flattery  which  ascribed  to  them  a 
divine  parentage  deceived  nobody.  But  even  so,  there 
is  no  real  analogy  with  the  Virgin  Birth  of  the  Gospels. 
A  quite  worthless  fable  made  Plato  a  son  of  Apollo. 
But  this  was  not  connected  with  the  idea  of  his  mother 
being  a  Virgin.  As  Dr.  Gore  remarks :  "  None  of  the 
pagan  writers  cited  refers  to  Plato  as  born  of  a  Vir- 
gin." 2  Alexander,  Soltau  tells  us,  was  given  out  by 
the  priests  to  be  a  son  of  Zeus,  and  he  himself  spread 
abroad  the  anecdote  "  that  he  was  not  the  bodily  son  of 
Philip,  but  " — think  of  it — "  was  begotten  by  a  serpent 
cohabiting  with  his  mother."  3  But  even  in  this  ridicu- 
lous story  there  is  no  suggestion  that  his  mother  was  a 
Virgin.  Similarly,  the  same  authority  informs  us,  Au- 
gustus "was  careful  that  the  fable  should  be  widely 
diffused  to  the  effect  that  his  mother  was  once,  while 
asleep  in  the  temple  of  Apollo,  visited  by  the  god  in  the 
form  of  a  serpent,  and  that  in  the  tenth  month  after- 
wards he  himself  was  born."  The  emperor,  we  are  fur- 
ther told,  "  did  everything  in  his  power  to  promote  the 

1  Against  Celsus,  i.  37.  2  Dissertations,  p.  291. 

a  Op.  cit.,  p.  23  (E.  T.,  p.  46). 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF   NARRATIVES  171 

belief  that  Apollo  was  his  father."  '  Here,  again,  there 
is  no  question  of  a  Virgin  Birth.  Observe  the  contrast 
between  these  fables,  unblushingly  spread  abroad  by  the 
persons  immediately  concerned,  and  by  interested  flat- 
terers, and  the  stories  in  the  Gospels.  Where  are  the 
priests  here  to  invent  the  story  ?  Who  will  accuse  Jesus 
or  His  disciples  of  acting  as  Alexander  and  Augustus 
are  reported  to  have  done  ? 

3.  A  direct  borrowing  of  this  idea  from  contemporary 
heathenism  is  now  accordingly  largely  given  up,  even  by 
extreme  writers  like  Dr.  Cheyne  and  Gunkel,  though  its 
rejection  disposes  of  at  least  three-fourths  of  the  popu- 
lar analogies.  Shall  we,  then,  look  further  afield — say 
to  the  legend  of  Buddha  ?  Now,  if  anything  in  this  re- 
gion is  certain  at  all,  it  is  that  Buddhism  was  not  known, 
and  its  influence  was  not  felt,  in  Christian  circles,  in  the 
first  century  of  our  era.  If  it  were  necessary,  I  might  ' 
show  that  the  birth  stories  of  Buddha  are  not  found  in 
the  oldest  books  of  the  Buddhists  themselves,  are  at 
least  two  or  three  centuries  later  than  Buddha's  own 
time,  and  in  written  form  are  much  later  still.2  But 
supposing  the  stories  to  be  older,  and  much  more  reliable 
than  they  are,  I  come  back  to  my  point  that  they  are 
still  not  stories  of  birth  from  a  Virgin.  What  real 
analogy,  one  may  well  ask,  is  there  between  the  self-re- 

*Ibid.  (E.  T.,  pp.  47,  77). 

2Cf.  the  discussions  in  Kellogg's  The  Light  of  Asia  and  the  Light 
of  the  World,  pp.  37 'ff. 


172  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

strained  narratives  of  the  Gospels  and  the  extravaganza 
— for  such  it  is — which  relates  how,  when  Buddha's 
mother  (a  married  woman)  was  asleep,  she  dreamed 
that  a  white,  six-tusked  elephant  entered  her  side,  and 
how,  ten  months  later,  a  child  was  born  i  *  It  is  certain, 
as  I  have  said,  that  the  Gospel  writers  never  heard  of 
Buddha,  nor  were  the  stories  about  him  afloat  in  their 
circles;  but,  if  they  had  been,  can  you  conceive  of  our 
Evangelists  appropriating  and  using  them  ? 

4.  Foiled  in  these  directions,  shall  we  look  to  Egypt  ? 
The  Pharaohs  were  spoken  of  as  Sons  of  Ka — without, 
however,  any  necessary  implication  of  peculiarity  in 
their  birth.  In  one  instance,  however — that  of  Ameno- 
phis  III,  of  the  18th  dynasty — it  is  alleged  that  there 
is  a  parallel.  The  story  seems  really  to  have  been  an 
expedient  for  legitimising  the  birth  of  the  Pharaoh, 
whose  mother  was  an  Asiatic,  but  unfortunately,  like 
the  rest,  it  breaks  down  at  the  crucial  point.  The  form 
which  the  fable — we  cannot  call  it  a  myth — took  was 
that  the  god  Amon-Ra  "  incarnated  himself  in  the  royal 
person  of  the  husband  [Thothmes  IV]  "  of  this  queen, 
and  visited  her  on  her  couch,  in  order,  as  it  is  said,  "  that 
he  might  be  a  father  through  her."  2  This  evidently — 
to  say  no  more  about  it — is  in  no  way  a  story  of  a  Virgin 

*Cf.  Gore,  Dissertations,  pp.  58-9;  Kellogg,  op.  cit.,  p.  69.  Bud- 
dhism, it  is  to  be  remembered  knows  nothing  of  a  God  or  of  a  Holy 
Spirit. 

2Cf.  Sayce,  Religions  of  Ancient  Egypt  and  Babylonia,  p.  249; 
Sweet,  op.  cit.,  pp.  170-3. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  NARRATIVES         173 

Birth.  But  again,  even  if  it  were,  what  probability  is 
there  of  the  tale  ever  reaching  or  influencing  Matthew 
or  Luke  \ 

There  remains  still  ancient  Babylonia  as  a  possible 
source  of  origin  for  this  supposed  myth.  Before,  how- 
ever, looking  at  the  newer  speculations  on  this  subject, 
let  me  glance  at  a  class  of  theories  which,  assigning  a 
very  late  date  to  the  rise  of  the  idea  of  the  Virgin  Birth, 
are  compelled,  in  the  teeth,  as  we  saw,  of  all  textual  au- 
thority, to  assume  extensive  interpolation  of  the  Gospel 
narratives,  and  a  gradual  building  up  of  the  Gospel 
story  by  successive  additions.  This  is  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  theories  of  Schmiedel,  Usener,  Soltau, 
Volker,  and  others ;  but  it  will  be  sufficient  to  take  that 
of  Soltau  as  a  type  of  the  whole.  It  is  a  theory  put 
forth  with  much  assurance,  yet  will  probably  be  regarded 
by  sober  judges  as  a  species  of  reductio  ad  absurdum  of 
this  entire  method  of  theorising. 

According  to  Soltau,  the  idea  of  the  conception  of 
Jesus  by  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  arise  till  towards  the 
end  of  the  first  century,1  that  is,  till  fully  a  quarter  of  a 
century  after  the  Gospels  containing  the  birth-narratives 
were,  according  to  our  best  knowledge,  already  circu- 
lating in  the  Church !  2  The  conception  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  however,  is  not  the  commencement,  but  in  reality 
the  end  of  a  long  development,  the  beginning  of  which, 
» Op.  cit.  (E.  T.,  p.  48).  «  See  above,  pp.  58#. 


174  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

in  the  transference  of  the  place  of  birth  of  Jesus  from 
Nazareth  to  Bethlehem,  is  curiously  enough  likewise 
dated  by  this  author  at  the  close  of  the  first  century.1 
It  was  pointed  out  before  that  Usener  sees  in  John  vii. 
42  a  hint  of  "  the  hidden  path  "  by  which  the  idea  of 
the  birth  at  Bethlehem  entered.2  On  this  foundation, 
once  laid,  the  rest  of  the  story  was  gradually  built  up — 
the  census,  as  a  means  of  bringing  Joseph  and  Mary  to 
Bethlehem,  the  visit  of  the  shepherds,  the  adoration  of 
the  Magi,  etc.  As  yet,  it  is  to  be  noted,  there  is  nothing 
of  a  Virgin  Birth  in  the  story.  Where  did  these  other 
incidents  come  from  ?  Here  we  arrive  at  Soltau's  orig- 
inal contribution  to  the  theory.  Inscriptions,  it  appears, 
relating  to  the  birthday  of  Augustus,  have  been  found 
in  Asia  Minor,  in  which  Augustus  is  hailed  as  a  "  god," 
and  "  saviour,"  his  birthday  is  said  to  be  a  beginning 
of  "  glad  tidings,"  his  reign  brings  "  peace  "  and  "  har- 
money."  3  What  can  be  clearer  than  that  here  we  have 
the  real  sources  of  the  message  and  song  of  the  angels 
in  Luke's  story  of  the  birth  of  Jesus?  As  if  there 
was  the  least  probability  that  Luke  ever  heard  of  these 
inscriptions,  or  as  if  he  needed  to  go  to  them  for 
such  terms  as  "  Saviour,"  or  "  glad  tidings,"  or  such 
ideas  as  "  peace  on  earth,"  as  the  result  of  Messiah's 
reign!     Terms    and    ideas   which    stared    him    in   the 

1  Op.  cit.  (E.  T.,  p.  25).     Sweet  remarks  that  he  brings  the  be- 
ginning and  the  end  of  the  development  together  (p.  90). 

2  See  above,  p.  113. 

3  The  inscriptions  are  given  in  the  appendix  to  his  book. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  NARRATIVES  175 

face  in  the  pages  of  his  Greek  Bible !  On  the  same 
principle  nearly  all  the  writers  in  the  New  Testament 
might  be  shown  to  have  been  diligent  students  of  the 
inscriptions  of  Halicarnassus,  for  the  same  ideas  and 
words  occur  in  them!  So  the  story  of  the  Magi  is 
decomposed  into  three  elements:  (1)  The  star  is  sug- 
gested by  what  Suetonius  relates  of  wonderful  signs  at 
the  birth  of  Augustus.  (2)  The  Magi  are  introduced  to 
interpret  the  star.  (3)  The  journey  and  the  adoration 
of  the  Magi  are  borrowed  from  the  visit  of  the  Parthian 
king,  Tiridates,  and  his  Magians  to  the  court  of  Nero 
in  66  a.d.  This  journey,  we  are  gravely  informed, 
"  could  only  be  explained  if  their  act  of  adoration  might 
be  transferred  from  the  Antichrist  Nero  to  the  Mes- 
siah " !  *  Finally,  as  the  copestone  of  the  structure, 
there  is  introduced  the  idea  of  the  Virgin  Birth  from 
pagan  mythology,  as  formerly  described,  with  perhaps 
suggestions  from  the  births  of  sons  of  promise  in  the 
Old  Testament.2  If,  really,  any  one  supposes  that  nar- 
ratives so  beautiful,  poetic,  and  closely  connected,  could 
originate  in  this  fragmentary,  haphazard  fashion,  he  is 
wellnigh  past  reasoning  with.  But  the  whole  theory 
falls  like  a  house  of  cards  once  it  is  realised  that  the 
completed  Gospels  were  already  there  decades  before 
Soltau  allows  the  process  of  development  to  begin ! 

I  have  already  said  that  one  thing  fatal  to  the  whole 
* Op.  cit.t  p.  40;  cf.  pp.  49,  50.  «  Op.  cit.,  pp.  41#.,  49,  etc. 


176  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

group  of  theories  we  have  been  considering  is  the  intense 
repugnance  known  to  have  been  felt  by  the  early  Chris- 
tians to  everything  connected  with  heathen  idolatry. 
Harnack,  as  against  Usener,  reminds  us  "  that  the  oldest 
Christianity  strictly  refrained  from  everything  polythe- 
istic and  heathen,"  and  on  that  account  declares  that 
"  the  unreasonable  method  of  collecting  from  the  myth- 
ology of  all  peoples  parallels  for  original  Church  tra- 
ditions, whether  historical  reports  or  legends,  is  value- 
less." "  The  Greek  or  Oriental  mythology,"  he  says, 
"  I  should  leave  entirely  out  of  account ;  for  there  is  no 
occasion  to  suppose  that  the  Gentile  congregations  in  the 
time  up  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century  adopted, 
despite  of  their  fixed  principle,  popular  mythical  repre- 
sentations." * 

This  difficulty  is  so  obvious  that  writers  like  Gunkel 
and  Cheyne  now  give  up  altogether  the  idea  of  a  late 
borrowing  of  the  myths  from  heathenism,  and  strike  out 
a  new  line  of  theory,  which,  as  it  is  the  latest  in  order  of 
appearance,  is  the  last  I  shall  trouble  you  with.  The 
view  advocated  by  Gunkel,  Cheyne,  Farnell,  and  others 
is,  that  the  idea  of  the  Virgin  Birth  was  not  a  late  bor- 
rowing from  contemporary  paganism,  but  came  down 
by  a  long  process  of  transmission  from  Babylonian, 
Arabian,  and  Persian — ultimately  from  Babylonian — 
sources,  and  had,  by  the  time  of  Christ,  assumed  a  defi- 
nite shape  among  the  Jews  in  a  sketch  of  the  person  and 

1  Quoted  by  Machen,  Princeton  Theol.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1906,  p.  74. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES  OF  NARRATIVES  177 

attributes  of  the  Messiah,  which  the  early  Christians  had 
no  difficulty  in  taking  over  in  its  entirety  upon  Jesus. 
As  Gunkel  says  of  the  story  of  the  Virgin  Birth  in 
Luke :  "  We  see  here,  therefore,  that  a  characteristically 
heathenish  representation  is  taken  over  upon  Jesus  in 
Jewish  Christianity."  1  This  may  be  said  almost  to  be 
the  theory  of  Strauss  revived,  only  that,  instead  of  Old 
Testament  prophecy  furnishing  the  sketch  of  the  Mes- 
siah which  is  applied  to  Jesus,  it  is  heathen,  specially 
Babylonian  mythology,  that  is  called  upon  to  yield  it. 
An  extract  or  two  from  Dr.  Cheyne's  book,  Bible 
Problems,  will  show  how  the  theory  is  worked  out.  On 
the  basis  of  Arabian,  Babylonian,  Egyptian,  and  Per- 
sian parallels,  Dr.  Cheyne  seeks  to  make  plain  how  be- 
liefs like  those  of  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus,  His  descent 
into  Hades,  His  resurrection  and  ascension,  arose.  He 
remarks :  "  On  the  ground  of  facts  supplied  by  archae- 
ology, it  is  plausible  to  hold  that  all  these  arose  out  of  a 
pre-Christian  sketch  of  the  life,  death,  and  exaltation 
of  the  expected  Messiah,  itself  ultimately  derived  from 
a  widely  current  mythic  tradition  respecting  a  solar 
deity."  2  Paul's  statement  "  that  Christ  died  and  that 
He  rose  again  i  according  to  the  Scriptures/  in  reality 
points,"  he  thinks,  "  to  a  pre-Christian  sketch  of  the 
life  of  Christ — partly,  as  we  have  seen — derived  from 
widely  spread,  non-Jewish  myths,  and  embodied  in  Jew- 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  68. 

2  Bible  Problems,  p.  128. 


178  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

ish  writings."  1  A  recent  believing  scholar,  Jeremias, 
adopts  substantially  the  same  view,  but  sees  in  the 
heathen  myths  a  case  of  real  heathen  prophecy  (provi- 
dentially ordained),  to  which  the  actual  facts  of  Christ's 
life  and  death  corresponded.2 

You  have  now  before  you  the  very  newest  of  these 
theories  of  the  mythical  origin  of  the  idea  of  the  Virgin 
Birth — a  theory  which,  like  its  predecessors,  lacks  but 
one  thing — bottom.  You  will  perceive  at  once  about 
this  theory: — 

1.  It  gives  the  death-stroke  to  all  the  theories  that 
have  gone  before  it — to  the  theory  of  a  purely  Jewish 
origin  of  the  myth ;  to  the  theory  of  a  late  origin  of  the 
myth;  to  the  theory  of  a  borrowing  of  the  myth  from 
contemporary  heathenism ;  to  the  theory  of  a  wholesale 
interpolation  of  the  documents  containing  it. 

2.  It  cuts  the  ground  from  all  the  arguments  derived 
from  the  supposed  silence  of  Mark,  Paul,  John,  and 
other  New  Testament  writers.  For  this  "  pre-Christian 
sketch,"  including  as  one  of  its  features  the  Virgin 
Birth,  is  supposed  to  be  familiar  to  them  all ;  Paul,  in 
particular,  is  alleged  to  use  it,  if  not  actually  to  quote 
it  as  Scripture ! 

3.  But  lastly — that  the  new  theory  itself  is  absolutely 
baseless.  Who  ever  saw,  or  heard  of,  or  came  on  any 
trace  of,  this  purely  imaginary  "  pre-Christian  sketch," 

i  Ibid.,  p.  113. 

2  In  his  book,  Das  Babylonisches  im  N.  T. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES   OF  NARRATIVES  179 

based  on  Babylonian  or  other  myths,  which  is  first 
thought  of  as  "  plausible,"  then  is  converted  into  a  cer- 
tainty, and  reasoned  from  as  a  fact!  Jewish  or  Chris- 
tian literature  furnishes  not  a  scrap  of  evidence  for  its 
existence.  It  is,  what  these  writers  would  have  the  Vir- 
gin Birth  to  be,  purely  a  fiction — a  creation  of  the  brain. 
The  upshot,  therefore,  is,  that  this  new  theory,  having 
destroyed  all  the  others,  itself  shares  in  their  downfall, 
and  leaves  the  field  clear  for  the  only  remaining 
hypothesis,  which  is  the  simplest  and  most  satisfactory 
of  any — that  the  thing  actually  happened. 

This  theory  professes  to  derive  the  myth  of  the  Virgin 
Birth  from  the  ancient  East,  but  I  have  now  further  to 
remark  on  it,  as  I  did  on  the  others,  that  no  real  case 
of  a  Virgin  Birth  is  found  in  the  instances  brought  for- 
ward. Dr.  Cheyne  himself  will  be  our  witness  here. 
The  term  "  virgin  "  in  these  old  myths  meant  anything 
but  what  we  now  mean  by  it — meant,  in  fact,  as  he  tells 
us,  that  the  goddess-mother  was  "  independent  of  the 
marriage  tie,"  and  could  live  a  life  of  what  we  call  "  free 
love."  l  Out  of  this  abyss  of  licentiousness  he  asks  us 
to  believe  that  such  a  representation  as  that  of  the  Vir- 
gin-mother of  the  Gospels  originated ! 

One  proof,  indeed,  is  brought  forward  by  Gunkel, 

Cheyne,  and  others  of  these  writers  in  support  of  the 

existence  of  this  "  pre-Christian  sketch,"  and  of  their 

general  theory  of  Babylonian  influence.    It  is  the  repre- 

1  Bible  Problems,  p.  75. 


180  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

sentation  in  the  Apocalypse  of  the  woman  clothed  with 
the  sun,  who,  with  the  man-child  to  which  she  gives 
birth,  is  persecuted  by  the  dragon  (ch.  xii.).  Ingenious 
parallels  are  worked  out  between  this  vision  and  the 
narratives  of  the  Infancy.  The  woman  clothed  with  the 
sun  corresponds  with  Mary  in  the  story  of  the  Gospels ; 
the  dragon,  who  seeks  to  destroy  the  seed  of  the  woman, 
corresponds  with  Herod,  etc.  Gunkel  himself  makes 
the  significant  admission  that  he  cannot  find  exactly 
such  a  myth  in  any  Babylonian  records  yet  brought  to 
light.1  Bousset,  who  combats  the  Babylonian  theory, 
thinks  that  the  conception  has  an  Egyptian  origin. 
Without,  however,  troubling  ourselves  about  either 
Babylonian  or  Egyptian  elements  in  the  imagery,  we 
may  safely  take  the  ground  that,  if  a  relation  of  de- 
pendence is  to  be  assumed  at  all,  it  is  immensely  more 
probable  that  the  dependence  is  on  the  side  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, and  not  on  the  side  of  the  Gospels.  One  can 
understand  how  the  Virgin  and  her  divine  Son  could 
suggest  the  imagery  of  the  Apocalypse  —  the  woman 
symbolising  really  the  Jewish  Church — but  not  how  the 
grandeur  of  the  symbolic  picture  could  suggest  the  lowly 
Mary.  Herod's  attempt  on  the  life  of  Jesus  might  sug- 
gest the  dragon,  but  hardly  the  dragon,  Herod.  Taken 
in  this  light,  the  Apocalyptic  passage  is  another  witness 
to  the  fact  in  the  Gospels. 

The  theories  of  mythical  origin  have  thus,  one  after 
»  Op.  cit.,  p.  196. 


MYTHICAL  THEORIES   OF  NARRATIVES  181 

the  other,  been  tried  and  found  wanting.  The  Jewish 
theories  confute  the  Gentile;  the  Gentile  theories  con- 
fute the  Jewish;  the  new  Babylonian  theory  destroys 
both,  and  itself  perishes  with  them.  The  one  thing  that 
does  not  crumble  beneath  us  is  the  historical  fact. 


LECTUEE    VII 

DOCTRINAL   BEARINGS    OF    THE    VIRGIN    BIRTH PERSON- 
ALITY OF   CHRIST   AS  INVOLVING  MIRACLE  I 
SINLESSNESS   AND  UNIQUENESS 

It  is  customary  to  seek  to  loosen  the  foundations  of 
belief  in  the  article  of  the  Virgin  Birth  by  affirming 
that  no  doctrinal  interest  is  involved  in  its  acceptance 
or  non-acceptance.  Eaith  in  Jesus  as  the  divine  Re- 
deemer— faith  even  in  His  sinlessness — is,  we  are  told, 
in  no  way  dependent  on,  or  conditioned  by,  belief  in  His 
supernatural  birth.  The  article,  it  is  argued,  may  there- 
fore safely  be  dropped  from  our  creeds.  It  is  this  pro- 
position I  am  to  examine  in  the  present  and  in  the  con- 
cluding lectures. 

I  do  not  deny  that  if  it  could  really  be  shown  that,  as 
alleged,  no  important  doctrinal  interest  is  involved  in 
the  birth  from  the  Virgin,  it  would  do  much  to  lessen 
our  concern  about  the  fact.  Even  then,  as  I  said  at  the 
commencement,  it  would  behove  us  to  be  cautious.  We 
have  still  the  record  to  be  dealt  with  as  an  unassailable 
part  of  Scripture;  we  are  poor  judges  of  what  may  or 
may  not  be  involved  in  so  transcendent  a  fact  as  the 
Incarnation ;  and  if,  according  to  the  evidence  we  have, 

182 


DOCTRINAL   BEARINGS  183 

this  was  actually  the  way  in  which  God  brought  His 
Son  into  the  world,  it  would  be  wiser  for  us  to  assume 
that  there  is  a  doctrinal  connection,  whether  we  can  see 
it  or  not,  than  hastily  to  conclude  that  the  Virgin  Birth 
is  of  indifference  to  faith.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  a  great  help  and  support  to 
faith  if  we  are  able  to  see — as  I  think  we  may  come  to 
see — that  a  connection  between  fact  and  doctrine  does 
exist,  and  that,  on  any  showing,  a  miraculous  origin 
must  be  held  to  be  involved  in  the  constitution  of  such 
a  Person  as  Christ  is.  I  freely  grant  that  faith  in  the 
Virgin  Birth  cannot  be  separated  from  the  other  ele- 
ments of  our  faith  in  Christ.  As  Dr.  Gore  has  said, 
if  Christ's  subsequent  life  was  miraculous,  and  His  mode 
of  exit  from  it,  "  beyond  all  doubt  this  fact  conditions 
the  evidence  as  to  His  Nativity."  * 

I  have  sought  to  show,  as  my  argument  has  proceeded, 
that  certain  things  create  a  strong  presumption  that 
there  really  does  exist  such  a  connection  between  fact 
and  doctrine  as  I  speak  of.  I  indicated  that  the  very 
zeal  of  the  opponents  points  in  this  direction ;  for  people 
do  not  usually  waste  their  energies  in  efforts  to  over- 
throw a  fact  which  they  deem  of  no  importance.  I 
dwelt  also  on  the  circumstance  that,  with  few  exceptions, 
it  is  those  who  accept  the  Incarnation,  in  the  full  sense 
of  that  word,  who  defend  the  Virgin  Birth,  while  the 
1  Dissertations,  p.  57. 


184  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

attacks  upon  it,  as  a  rule,  come  from  those  who  reject 
the  supernatural  or  miraculous  aspects  of  Christ's  life 
as  a  whole.  The  constancy  with  which  these  two  things 
go  together  is  only  explicable  on  the  assumption  that 
there  is  a  hidden  bond  between  them.  As  the  late  Prof. 
A.  B.  Bruce — a  man  of  sufficiently  liberal  mind — put 
it :  "  The  connection  is  so  close  that  few  who  earnestly 
believe  in  the  absolute  worth  of  Christ's  Person  will  be 
disposed  to  deny  the  truth  of  the  Evangelical  narratives 
relating  to  the  manner  of  His  entrance  into,  and  exit 
from,  the  world."  * 

There  are,  however,  other  considerations — exegetical, 
historical,  elements  in  the  theories  of  the  opponents 
themselves — which  go  far  to  strengthen  this  belief  that 
there  is,  and  must  be,  a  close  connection  between  the 
fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth  and  the  miracle  of  Christ's 
Personality.  I  may  touch  on  these  as  preliminary  to 
the  direct  argument. 

1.  Exegetically,  it  is  very  difficult,  I  think,  to  read 
the  narratives  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  not  see  that 
the  writers  of  these  chapters,  at  least,  believed  that  a 
close  connection  existed  between  the  miraculous  birth 
they  recorded,  and  the  kind  of  Personality  Jesus  was 
to  be,  the  kind  of  life  He  was  to  lead,  the  work  He  was 
to  do.  In  both  of  these  narratives  it  will  be  observed 
that  the  conception  by  the  Holy  Ghost  does  not  stand 
by  itself  as  a  simple  marvel.  It  grounds  something; 
1  Miraculous  Elements  in  the  Gospels,  pp.  352-3. 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  185 

and  that  something  is  the  whole  spiritual  and  ethical 
significance  of  the  Personality  of  Christ.  In  Matthew, 
the  angel  declares  to  Joseph  that  that  which  is  conceived 
by  Mary  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  goes  on  to  direct 
how  this  wonderful  child  is  to  be  named.  "  Thou  shalt 
call  His  name  Jesus;  for  it  is  He  that  shall  save  His 
people  from  their  sins."  1  The  miraculously  born  child 
is  to  be  the  Saviour.  The  language  of  Luke  is  even 
more  significant.  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon 
thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Most  High  shall  overshadow 
thee ;  wherefore  " — mark  the  illative  particle — "  that 
which  is  to  be  born  shall  be  called  holy,  the  Son  of 
God."  2  Can  it  be  doubted  that,  in  the  mind  of  the 
Evangelist,  both  the  unique  character  of  Jesus  as 
"  holy,"  and  His  divine  Sonship  in  our  humanity,  are 
grounded  in  the  fact  of  His  miraculous  conception? 
There  is,  indeed,  nothing  here  about  pre-existence :  that 
is  left  for  after  revelation ;  3  but  all  that  is  involved  in 
His  unique  Sonship — for  we  see  at  once  from  the  con- 
text that  it  is  no  mere  physical  filiation,  but  a  unique 
relation  of  a  higher  kind  that  is  intended — just  as  all 
that  is  involved  in  His  character  as  "  holy,"  and  in  His 
function  as  Saviour  (cf.  ch.  ii.  11) — is  regarded  as  con- 
ditioned by  His  being  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

2.  A  like  presumption  of  connection  arises  when  we 
consider  the  use  made  of  this  fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
historically.     We  saw,  in  dealing  with  the  witness  of 
»  Matt.  i.  21.  2  Luke  i.  35.  3  See  below,  p.  209. 


186  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

the  early  Church,  how  tenaciously  the  Fathers  of  that 
age  held  hy  this  fact  in  their  controversies  with  pagans 
and  Gnostics — held  fast  by  it,  not  simply  as  a  piece  of 
tradition,  not  simply  as  a  marvel,  not  simply  as  ful- 
filling prophecy,  but  as  a  fact  of  vital  doctrinal  mo- 
ment: the  guarantee  at  once  of  the  real  humanity  of 
Christ,  as  against  all  docetic  denial,  and,  not  less  de- 
cisively, of  His  superhuman  dignity, .  as  against  all 
Ebionitic  lowering  of  His  Person. 

3.  Finally,  I  would  ask  you  to  reflect  what,  on  the 
theories  of  the  opponents  themselves,  is  the  significance 
of  this  alleged  myth  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  the  prin- 
ciple of  its  origin.  What  gave  rise  to  it  ?  Mere  poetic 
fancy  ?  No,  we  are  told,  but  the  desire  to  account  for  a 
superhuman  element  discerned  in  Jesus;  more  spe- 
cifically, to  find  an  explanation  of  the  divine  Sonship 
already  ascribed  to  Him.  Recall  some  of  the  expres- 
sions used.  "  The  Gospel  narrative  of  the  supernatural 
birth  of  Jesus,"  Lobstein  says,  "  is  an  explanatory  for- 
mula, an  attempt  to  solve  the  Christological  problem."  * 
"  Viewed  as  the  Logos  in  human  form,"  says  F.  0. 
Conybeare,  "  how  should  his  birth  be  represented  except 
as  from  a  Virgin  ?  "  2  Soltau  goes  still  further :  "  When 
the  Pauline  and  Johannine  Christology,  having  been 
translated  into  popular  language  [we  should  hear  no 
more  after  this  of  the  incompatibility  of  the  Virgin 

«  Op.  tit.,  p.  72. 

2  Quoted  by  Machen,  as  above,  Jan.,  1906,  p.  72. 


DOCTRINAL   BEARINGS  187 

Birth  with  the  Christologies  of  Paul  and  John],  pene- 
trated to  the  lower  classes  of  the  people,  it  was  almost 
bound  to  lead  to  the  view  .  .  .  that  Christ,  in  calling 
God  His  Father,  did  not  merely  call  Him  so  in  the  sense 
in  which  all  are  children  of  God,  but  that  He  was  even 
bodily  of  higher  derivation,  of  divine  origin."  1  What, 
I  ask,  does  all  this  mean,  if  not  that,  in  the  view  even 
of  these  writers,  the  narratives  of  the  Virgin  Birth  are 
saturated  with  a  doctrinal  significance  ?  The  story  of 
the  miraculous  conception  is  doctrine  translated  into  his- 
tory. The  doctrinal  motive  is  of  the  very  essence  of  it. 
Its  connection  with  the  view  taken  of  Christ's  Person  is 
absolute.  That  character,  surely,  it  does  not  lose,  if, 
refusing  to  regard  it  as  myth,  we  accept  it  as  history. 

Still  the  allegation  is  persistently  made  that  faith  in 
Jesus  as  Redeemer,  even  on  the  highest  view  we  can  take 
of  His  Person  and  work,  is  in  no  way  dependent  on  be- 
lief in  His  supernatural  birth.  The  grounds  on  which 
this  is  urged  have  already  been  partially  before  us,  but 
must  here  be  more  formally  indicated. 

1.  It  is  argued  that  there  is  no  a  priori  reason  why 
the  Incarnation — assuming  this  to  be  a  fact,  which  most 
of  these  writers  do  not  believe  it  to  be — should  not  have 
taken  place  in  the  way  of  ordinary  parentage,  but  should 
involve  birth  from  a  Virgin.  There  is  no  stain,  it  is 
pointed  out,  in  honourable  marriage ;  and  the  divine  Son 
1  Op.  cit.,  p.  44. 


188  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

could  as  truly  (perhaps  more  truly)  have  taken  our 
nature  by  the  agency  of  two  parents,  as  by  means  of  one. 
God,  it  is  urged,  does  not  work  superfluous  miracles — 
these  writers  usually  hold  that  He  does  not  work  any — 
and  there  seems  here  no  call  for  a  departure  from  the 
ordinary  course  of  nature.  I  have  already  replied  that 
we  are  altogether  incompetent  judges  of  what  may  be 
involved  in  so  stupendous  a  fact  as  the  Incarnation :  that 
it  is,  in  fact,  the  objector,  not  we,  who  is  laying  down 
a  priori  what  God  must  do  in  the  Incarnation  of  His 
Son.  But  I  shall  try  immediately  to  show  that  we  can 
go  a  great  deal  further  than  this. 

2.  As  the  Virgin  Birth  is  thought  to  be  not  necessary 
for  the  Incarnation,  so,  in  the  next  place,  it  is  argued 
that  it  is  not  necessary  for  Christ's  sinlessness.  The  in- 
heritance of  a  sinful  nature,  it  is  said,  is  not  precluded 
by  birth  from  a  woman  alone.  If  the  mother  herself 
is  sinful,  the  taint  of  corruption  can  be  conveyed  as 
effectually  through  one  as  through  two  parents.  Noth- 
ing, therefore,  is  really  gained,  in  the  interest  of  the 
holiness  of  Jesus,  by  the  exclusion  of  the  father.  The 
element  of  truth  in  this  objection  must  be  acknowledged. 
There  was  nothing,  I  grant,  in  the  mere  fact  that  Jesus 
was  born  of  a  Virgin — in  that  fact,  I  mean,  considered 
by  itself — to  secure  that  Christ  should  be  perfectly  pure, 
or  free  from  stain  of  sin.  In  conjunction,  however, 
with  the  other  factor  in  the  miraculous  birth — the  con- 
ception by  the  Holy  Ghost — we  shall  see  afterwards  that 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  189 

there  was  involved  everything  to  secure  it.  Meanwhile, 
let  me  put  the  question  a  little  differently.  It  is  objected 
that  birth  from  a  Virgin  does  not  of  itself  secure  sin- 
lessness.  But  turn  the  matter  round,  and  ask :  Does  not 
perfect  sinlessness,  on  the  other  hand,  imply  a  miracle 
in  the  birth  ?  I  think  it  will  be  found  difficult,  on  re- 
flection, to  avoid  an  affirmative  answer. 

3.  We  are  reminded,  as  before,  that  the  Apostles  did 
not  include  the  Virgin  Birth  in  their  teaching — prob- 
ably did  not  know  of  it — certainly  did  not  make  it  the 
foundation  of  their  faith,  or  insist  on  belief  of  it  by 
others.  All  which,  as  we  saw  before,  may  be  admitted, 
and  still  our  main  point  stand  untouched.  No  one  al- 
leges that  the  Virgin  Birth  was  the  ground  of  the  Apos- 
tolic belief  in  the  Incarnation ;  though,  if  the  Apostles 
knew  of  it — as  I  think  it  probable  they  did — it  no  doubt 
contributed  its  share  to  that  belief.  If  they  did  not 
know  it  at  the  beginning,  of  course  they  could  not  teach 
it ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that,  once  it  was  made  known 
to  them,  they  would  not  value  it,  or  see  in  it  profound 
significance,  or  that  they  would  speak  slightingly  of  it, 
as  our  modern  objectors  do.  A  fact,  as  we  have  seen, 
may  not  be  the  original  ground  of  our  faith,  yet  may 
prove  to  be  an  essential  implication  of  our  faith ;  may 
not  be  the  foundation  of  our  faith,  yet  may  be  part  of  the 
foundation  of  the  thing  believed — of  the  reality  itself. 
I  refer  you  to  what  I  said  on  this  in  the  first  lecture.1 
» See  above,  pp.  25-26. 


190  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

It  is  time  now  that  I  should  approach  this  subject  on 
its  positive  side ;  and  here  I  hope  to  be  able  to  convince 
you  that  the  mode  of  our  Lord's  birth  does  stand  in  in- 
separable relation  with  the  constitution  of  His  Person — 
with  His  sinlessness,  with  His  divine  Sonship,  with  the 
reality  of  His  Incarnation.  It  is,  I  know,  a  great  de- 
mand on  faith  which  is  here  made;  but  then  it  is  a 
great  subject  we  have  to  deal  with.  I  shall  develop  my 
argument  in  the  line  of  advancing  from  the  general  fact 
of  miracle  in  the  constitution  of  a  Person  such  as 
Christ's  is,  to  the  particular  mode  of  miracle  implied  in 
the  Virgin  Birth;  and  shall  ask  you  to  consider  the 
subject  successively  from  the  three  points  of  view:  1. 
Of  the  sinlessness  (rather,  the  holiness)  of  Christ; 
2.  Of  His  uniqueness  as  a  new  creative  beginning  in 
humanity ;  and  3.  Of  His  Incarnation  as  Son  of  God — 
the  highest  point  of  view  of  all. 

1.  I  begin,  then,  with  that  side  of  Christ's  Person 
that  lies  nearest  to  us,  and  ask:  Is  the  Virgin  Birth  in 
any  degree  an  implication  of  Christ's  sinlessness  ? 

Jesus  was  sinless — this,  I  think,  I  am  warranted  in 
assuming.  It  is  a  flawless  character  which  the  Gospels 
present  to  us.  Jesus  Himself,  while  so  pure  and  un- 
erring in  His  judgments  on  sin  in  others — laying  His 
finger  on  the  first  uprisings  of  sin  in  the  sinful  thought 
or  desire — is  yet  without  trace  of  consciousness  of  sin. 
He  confesses  no  sin,  seeks  no  forgiveness,  knows  no  re- 
pentance.   He  puts  Himself  as  Saviour  over  against  all 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  191 

others  as  sinners  needing  salvation.  His  Apostles  and 
disciples — those  who  knew  Him  best — declare  Him  to 
be  free  from  sin.  "  He  did  no  sin,"  1  says  Peter.  "  In 
Him  was  no  sin/'  2  says  John.  "  He  knew  no  sin,"  3 
says  Paul,  repeating  their  testimony.  With  this  corre- 
spond the  declarations  at  His  birth.  "  He  shall  save 
His  people  from  their  sins,"  4  Matthew  reports,  in  this 
explicitly  distinguishing  Him  from  the  people  He  came 
to  save.  "  Wherefore  also  that  which  is  to  be  born  shall 
be  called  holy,"  5  Luke  says,  therein  bringing  His  holi- 
ness into  direct  connection  with  the  miraculous  con- 
ception. 

Here,  then,  arises  a  problem :  this  presence  of  an  abso- 
lutely Holy  One  in  our  sinful  humanity:  How  did  it 
come  about  ?  Can  nature  explain  it  ?  Is  not  a  miracle 
involved  in  the  very  statement  of  the  fact  ?  Undeniably, 
I  think,  it  is.  The  late  Prof.  A.  B.  Bruce,  already 
quoted,  justly  says :  "  A  sinless  man  is  as  much  a  miracle 
in  the  moral  world  as  a  Virgin  Birth  is  a  miracle  in  the 
physical  world."  6  It  is  very  interesting  to  my  mind 
to  notice  how  our  modern  advocates  of  a  humanitarian 
Christ,  naturally  born  from  Joseph  and  Mary,  deal 
with  this  fact  of  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus.  My  experi- 
ence is  that  there  is  hardly  one  of  them  but  hedges  when 
he  is  brought  face  to  face  with  it.    Prof.  Foster,  in  his 

1 1  Pet.  ii.  22.  « 1  John  iii.  5. 

3 II  Cor.  v.  21.  » Matt.  i.  21. 

6  Luke  i.  35.  «  Apologetics,  p.  410. 


192  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

book  on  The  Finality  of  the  Christian  Religion,  will  go 
no  further  than  to  say  that  He  is  "  the  best  we  know."  * 
Prof.  N.  Schmidt,  in  his  The  Prophet  of  Nazareth, 
says :  "  He  seems  to  have  had  no  morbid  consciousness 
of  sin.  His  consciousness  of  imperfection  was  swal- 
lowed up  in  the  sense  of  divine  love."  2  I  asked  an  able 
Ritschlian  friend  if  he  would  grant  me  the  perfect  sin- 
lessness  of  Christ.  His  reply  was :  "  That  is  a  the- 
oretical question."  I  do  not  mean  that  there  are  not 
those  who  accept  the  moral  miracle,  but  deny  the  physical 
(e.  g.,  Schleiermacher,  Keim,  Beyschlag).  I  shall  come 
to  their  case  immediately ;  3  but  it  must  be  owned  that 
commonly  in  practice  belief  in  the  miraculous  birth  and 
belief  in  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  stand  or  fall  together. 
Prof.  Bruce  has  remarked  on  this  also.  "  It  has  to  be 
remembered,"  he  says,  "  that  faith  is  ever  in  a  state  of 
unstable  equilibrium  while  the  supernatural  is  dealt  with 
eclectically ;  admitted  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  sphere, 
denied  in  the  physical.  With  belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth 
is  apt  to  go  belief  in  the  Virgin  life,  as  not  less  than  the 
other  a  part  of  that  veil  that  must  be  taken  away  that 
the  true  Jesus  may  be  seen  as  He  was — a  morally  de- 
fective man,  better  than  most,  but  not  perfectly  good."  4 
In  order,  however,  that  we  may  gauge  the  full  extent 
of  this  marvel  of  the  appearance  of  the  sinless  One  in 
humanity,  and  realise  the  imperative  need  of  miracle 

»  p.  482.  2  p.  25. 

3  See  below,  pp.  197-8,  205.  ■  As  above. 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  193 

to  explain  it,  we  must  go  a  good  deal  deeper,  and  look 
at  the  radically  sinful  condition  of  the  humanity  into 
which  Christ  came.  This  brings  us  back  to  the  theology 
of  the  Apostles,  which  we  have  already  in  part  consid- 
ered. We  are  discussing  doctrine,  and  it  is  in  the  light 
of  doctrine  that  I  ask  you  to  look  at  this  startling  fact 
of  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus. 

1.  Take,  first,  the  teaching  of  the  Apostle  John. 
We  saw  before  that,  to  John,  the  cardinal  fact  about 
human  nature  is,  that  it  needs  regeneration.  Natural 
birth  does  not  fit  a  man  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  He 
must  be  born  anew  of  the  Spirit.  Sin  so  cleaves  even 
to  the  believer  that,  if  any  man  says  he  has  no  sin,  he 
is  a  liar,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  him.1  The  holiness 
the  believer  has  comes  from  a  different  principle — one 
supernaturally  implanted.  Now  it  is  this  human  nature 
which,  according  to  the  Apostle,  the  Word#assumed  when 
He  "  became  flesh."  What  was  His  relation  to  it  ?  If 
Jesus  shared  in  this  human  nature  of  ours,  how  did  He 
escape  its  evil  ?  Was  there  ever  a  point  of  time  of  which 
it  could  be  said  of  Him  that  He  needed  regeneration, 
or  was  otherwise  than  perfectly  holy  in  thought,  and 
will,  and  deed  ?  The  suggestion,  I  think  you  will  admit, 
to  John's  mind  would  have  been  blasphemous.  Jesus 
was  the  Regenerator — the  Giver  of  the  Spirit — not  one 
of  the  regenerated  subjects  of  the  kingdom.  Whence, 
then,  this  complete  separation  between  Him  and  the  rest 
» I  John  i.  7-10. 


194  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

of  mankind?  What  higher  law  operated  in  His  case 
to  raise  Him  above  the  need  of  regeneration  common 
to  all  others  ?  It  is  futile  and  superficial  to  say,  as  some 
do,  that,  content  with  his  Logos  doctrine,  John  never 
reflected  on  this  question.  How  could  he  help  reflect- 
ing ?  John  knew  as  well  as  we  do  that  Jesus,  as  a  man, 
was  born — somehow.  He  knew  that  His  mother  was 
Mary.  Is  it  conceivable  that  he  could  think  of  His 
birth,  and  not  associate  with  it  the  idea  of  miracle  ? — a 
miracle  that  must  have  operated  in  the  very  inception 
of  His  being,  to  constitute  Him  the  Holy  One,  separate 
from  sinners,  that  He  was.  Or  can  we,  if  we  adopt 
John's  view  of  the  radical  need  of  regeneration  in  hu- 
manity, construe  the  earthly  origin  of  this  Holy  One  to 
our  thoughts  in  any  other  way  ? 

2.  Or,  next,  take  Paul's  characteristic  doctrine  of 
the  universal  sin  and  condemnation  of  the  race,  and  of 
the  carnal  condition  of  man  by  nature.  According  to 
Paul,  every  child  of  Adam  has  inherited  a  nature  which 
lacks  in  spiritual  power,  and  is  under  a  law  of  sin  and 
death, — the  evil  of  which  manifests  itself  in  dispositions 
and  desires  at  war  among  themselves,  and  in  revolt 
against  God  and  His  holy  law, — which,  in  its  carnal 
state,  is  "  enmity  against  God."  *  The  vov$,  or  better 
part  in  man,  is  not  extinguished ;  but  its  feeble  protests 
are  ineffectual  against  the  masterful  forces  of  sin.2  It 
is  not  that,  in  Paul's  view,  the  flesh  is  evil  in  itself. 
*  Rom.  viii.  7.  2  Rom.  vii.  22,  23. 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  195 

This  misunderstanding  of  his  doctrine  is  contradicted 
by  the  fact  that  human  nature  in  all  its  parts  and  mem- 
bers is  regarded  by  him  as  the  subject  of  redemption.1 
But  sin  has  taken  possession  of  this  nature,  governs  and 
controls  it,  so  that  to  be  "  in  the  flesh  "  is  the  synonym 
with  Paul  of  being  subject  to  sin,  and  specially  to  its 
inferior  impulses.  Every  man  is  thus  bound  by  the  law 
of  a  sinful  nature  to  corruption  and  death,  and  cannot 
by  any  power  of  his  own  deliver  himself  from  his 
wretched  estate.2 

What  then,  the  question  comes  back,  of  Jesus,  who  is 
born  into  this  humanity  expressly  for  its  redemption? 
Is  it  humanity  in  its  integrity,  or  humanity  in  its  fallen 
and  sin-corrupted  state,  that  Christ  assumes?  Does 
Jesus,  like  others,  stand  in  solidarity  with  Adam,  and 
share  the  sinful  nature,  the  loss  of  spiritual  power,  the 
perverted  and  godless  desires,  inherited  from  that  first 
forefather  by  natural  generation?  Surely  Paul  would 
have  replied,  had  such  a  question  been  put  to  him, 
"  Perish  the  thought !  "  Jesus  was  to  him  One  who 
stood  absolutely  free  from,  and  above,  this  law  of  sin 
and  death.  But  does  not  this,  again,  by  the  clearest 
necessity,  imply  miracle  in  the  constitution  of  His  Per- 
son ?  Assume,  if  you  will,  that  Paul  had  not  heard  of 
the  Virgin  Birth,  though  I  think  this  unlikely.  He 
knew  at  least  that  Jesus  had  a  human  birth,  and,  in  the 
very  nature  of  the  case,  he  must  have  conceived  of  that 
i  Rom.  vi.  13,  19.  2  Rom.  vii.  23. 


196  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

birth  as  involving  miracle,  for  only  by  a  miracle  could 
such  a  sinless  Person  flower  out  in  our  sinful  humanity. 
I  pointed  out  before,  accordingly,  that  in  every  one  of 
Paul's  references  to  the  earthly  origin  of  Christ  there  is 
some  significant  peculiarity  of  expression.1  And  again 
I  say,  if  we  accept  Paul's  premises  as  to  the  radically 
sinful  condition  of  human  nature,  I  fail  to  see  how  we, 
any  more  than  he,  can  escape  the  conclusion  that  Christ's 
entrance  into  our  humanity  must  have  been  exceptional 
and  miraculous. 

This,  I  confess,  is  one  of  the  things  I  can  never  un- 
derstand in  certain  of  our  modern  interpreters  of  John 
and  Paul.  They  think,  apparently,  they  have  explained 
everything  in  the  Christology  of  these  Apostles,  when 
they  have  used  such  terms  as  "  Logos  "  or  "  Heavenly 
Man,"  or  spoken  of  a  "  metaphysical,"  in  distinction 
from  a  "  physical  "  conception  of  Christ's  origin.  They 
seem  altogether  to  forget  that  for  Paul  and  John  also 
Jesus  was  a  man  who  was  actually  born,  and  that  prob- 
lems were  presented  by  His  birth,  not  the  less  hard,  but 
all  the  more  difficult  and  pressing,  just  because  of  their 
high  doctrine  of  pre-existence,  and  their  belief  in 
Christ's  sinlessness.  Jesus  had  an  earthly  origin,  and 
in  that  origin,  as  these  Apostles  well  knew,  He  was  dif- 
ferentiated from  every  other  by  the  fact  that,  from  the 
first  moment  of  His  existence,  He  was  absolutely  pure, 
— that  He  was  possessed  of  a  Spirit  of  holiness  which 
*See  above,  p.  117 ff. 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  197 

overbore  all  temptation,  even  to  the  slightest  evil,  and 
made  Him  continuously  and  perfectly  a  doer  of  the  will 
of  His  Father.  They  must  have  explained  this  to  them- 
selves somehow.  Can  it  be  doubted  that  they  explained  it 
to  their  own  thoughts  in  a  way  which  involved  miracle  ? 

Here,  then,  I  draw  my  first  strong  line — there  is  a 
miracle  involved  in  the  production  of  the  sinless  hu- 
manity of  Christ.  But  just  here,  I  know,  I  will  be 
pulled  up.  "  Miracle  " — I  can  think  I  hear  some  one 
say — "  Yes,  spiritual  miracle — moral  miracle — miracle, 
if  you  like,  in  the  region  of  the  soul ;  but  not  a  physical 
miracle — not  a  miracle  in  the  bodily  sphere — a  miracle 
which  suspends  the  ordinary  course  of  natural  causation 
— which  is  incompatible  with  a  double  parentage,  or  re- 
quires us  to  assume  birth  from  a  Virgin."  Some  who 
uphold  the  sinlessness  of  Christ  have  taken  exactly  this 
ground.  Schleiermacher,  Keim,  Beyschlag  took  this 
ground:  Ritschlians  like  Kaftan,  Loofs,  Haring,  etc., 
take  it  now.  Even  Lobstein,  in  his  own  way,  admits  the 
moral  miracle,  while  denying  the  physical.1  This,  in 
fact,  is  the  contention  of  these  writers.  Here,  they  say 
in  effect,  is  the  real  kernel  of  truth  in  the  Infancy  sto- 
ries ;  the  element  which  makes  them  truly  valuable ;  pre- 
serve this,  and  you  have  all  that  is  essential  to  faith  in 
these  representations. 

The  reply  I  have  to  make  to  this  form  of  theory,  which 
>  The  Virgin  Birth,  p.  101. 


198  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

fain  would  separate  the  spiritual  from  the  physical  mira- 
cle, is  simply  this — and  here  I  draw  my  next  broad  line 
— the  thing  cannot  he  done.  My  ground  for  this  asser- 
tion is  that,  in  the  nature  of  things,  spiritual  and  phys- 
ical are  so  intimately  related,  that  you  cannot  have  a 
change  so  vitally  affecting  humanity  on  the  spiritual 
side,  which  does  not  involve  a  corresponding  change  on 
the  physical  side,  or  in  the  sphere  of  organism.  We  are 
dealing  here,  I  ask  you  to  remember,  not  with  a  sim- 
ple miracle  of  sanctification — Jesus  being  viewed,  after 
the  analogy  of  ordinary  Christian  experience,  as  a  per- 
fectly sanctified  man.  Sanctification,  we  instinctively 
feel,  is  not  the  category  which  suits  One  like  Him,  for 
sanctification  implies  that  there  is  sin  to  be  cleansed 
away,  and  He  had  no  sin,  needed  no  cleansing.  He  is 
the  Sanctifier,  not  one  of  the  sanctified.  We  could  not 
apply  to  Him  the  language  of  John — "  He  is  faithful 
and  righteous  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us 
from  all  unrighteousness."  '  He  was  never  aught  but 
pure.  The  miracle,  therefore,  which  made  Him  what 
He  was, — which  faith  is  compelled  to  postulate  for  the 
explanation  of  His  Person, — is  one  that  goes  down  to  the 
primal  origin  of  His  earthly  being.  It  cannot  stop  at 
any  intermediate  point,  but  must  be  traced  back  to  the 
first  germinal  beginnings  of  His  existence,  or  even  be- 
hind them.  But  this  plainly  involves  the  physical  as 
well  as  the  spiritual  side  of  His  humanity. 
» I  John  i.  9. 


DOCTRINAL   BEARINGS  199 

The  subject  is  difficult  to  explain,  but  let  me  try  to 
illustrate  for  a  moment,  as  I  have  tried  to  do  elsewhere,1 
from  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution.  It  is  well 
known  that  certain  distinguished  evolutionists,  while 
handing  over  man's  body  to  be  accounted  for  by  the 
ordinary  processes  of  evolution,  yet  hold  that  man's 
mind  cannot  be  wholly  accounted  for  in  a  similar  man- 
ner. The  rational  mind  of  man,  they  urge — I  agree 
with  the  view,  but  am  not  called  upon  here  to  discuss 
it — has  qualities  and  powers  which  separate  it,  not  only 
in  degree,  but  in  kind,  from  the  animal  mind,  and  put 
an  unbridgeable  gulf,  on  the  spiritual  side,  between  man 
and  the  highest  of  the  creatures  below  him.  In  other 
words,  there  is,  in  man's  case,  a  rise  on  the  spiritual 
side — the  constitution  of  a  new  order  or  kingdom  of  ex- 
istence— which  requires  for  its  explanation  a  distinct 
supernatural  cause.  Eow  the  weakness  of  this  theory, 
I  have  always  felt,  lies  in  its  assumption  that,  while 
man's  mind  needs  a  supernatural  cause  to  account  for  it, 
his  body  may  be  left  to  the  ordinary  processes  of  de- 
velopment. The  difficulty  of  such  a  view  is  obvious.  I 
have  stated  the  point  in  this  way.  "  It  is  a  corollary 
from  the  known  laws  of  the  connection  of  mind  and 
body  that  every  mind  needs  an  organism  fitted  to  it.  If 
the  mind  of  man  is  the  product  of  a  new  cause,  the 
brain,  which  is  the  instrument  of  that  mind,  must  share 

JIn  my  volume  on  Ritschlianism,  Essay  on  "The  Miraculous 
Conception." 


200  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

in  its  peculiar  origin.  You  cannot  put  a  human  mind 
into  a  simian  brain."  '  In  other  words,  if  there  is  a 
sudden  rise  on  the  spiritual  side,  there  must  be  a  rise  on 
the  physical — the  organic — side  to  correspond. 

Now  apply  this,  with  all  reverence,  to  the  origin  of 
such  a  new  and  sinless  Personality  as  we  have  in  Jesus 
Christ.  How  is  this  to  be  accounted  for  on  the  sup- 
position of  a  miracle  in  the  spiritual  sphere  only  ?  A 
miracle  is  allowed  to  be  necessary  on  the  spiritual  side. 
It  is,  further,  not  a  miracle  of  ordinary  sanctification. 
It  is  a  miracle  that  operates  in  the  first  moment  of  His 
conception.  But,  in  a  new  creation  like  this,  can  we 
separate  the  two  sides  of  Christ's  Personality !  Surely 
we  must  say  that  a  perfect  soul  such  as  Jesus  had  needed 
as  its  counterpart  a  perfect  and  harmonious  organism. 
It  is  as  much  part  of  our  faith  that  Jesus  had  a  pure 
and  perfect  physical  nature  as  that  He  had  a  pure  and 
perfect  soul;  indeed  the  one  is  not  conceivable  without 
the  other.  We  may  distinguish  as  we  please  between 
the  spiritual  and  the  natural,  but  the  fact  is  that  man, 
as  we  know  him,  is  a  unity.  The  disturbance  of  sin  is 
felt  as  strongly  in  the  disordered  passions  of  his  body 
as  in  the  unregulated  affections  of  his  spirit. 

I  thus  come  back  to  the  point  from  which  I  started, 
that,  viewing  Jesus  as  a  Sinless  Personality,  there  is 
involved  a  supernatural  act  in  the  production  of  His 
bodily  nature.     One  lesson  I  would  draw  from  this  be- 

>  Ritschlianism,  p.  230. 


DOCTRINAL   BEARINGS  201 

fore  going  further.  I  was  speaking  in  last  lecture  of 
alleged  heathen  analogies  to  the  Virgin  Birth.  But  I 
would  ask  you  now  to  observe  how  completely  we  are 
outside  of  the  range  of  all  heathen  myths  in  this  idea  of 
supernatural  birth  as  grounding  a  Sinless  Personality. 
No  such  idea  as  that  is  found  anvwhere  in  heathenism. 

1/ 

In  Christianity  it  is  of  the  essence  of  the  conception. 
This  simple  fact  sets  the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus 
wholly  by  itself,  and  sweeps  away  the  entire  baseless 
fabric  of  analogies  sought  in  other  religions  to  this 
unique  act  of  God  in  our  redemption. 

2.  Thus  far  I  have  been  considering  how  far  miracle 
is  implied  in  the  perfect  sinlessness  of  Christ.  This, 
however,  is  only  the  first  round  in  the  ladder  of  ascent 
to  the  full  apprehension  of  the  dignity  of  Jesus.  We 
have  not  said  everything  about  Jesus  when  we  have  said 
sinlessness.  We  mount  a  stage  higher  when  we  regard 
Him,  as  He  is  set  forth  to  us  in  Scripture,  as  the  Second 
Adam  of  our  race,  and  new  creative  beginning  in  hu- 
manity. This,  in  truth,  is  already  implied  in  what  has 
gone  before,  for  it  is  evidently  no  ordinary  Person — no 
single  individual  of  the  race  —  who  had  the  creative 
origin  in  body  and  soul  just  described.  We  connect 
here  with  what  Paul  says  of  Christ  as  standing  to  the 
second  creation  in  a  like  relation  to  that  in  which  Adam 
stood  to  the  first ; 1  but  still  more  directly  we  connect 
1  Rom.  v.  14. 


202  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

with  Christ's  own  consciousness,  and  with  the  facts  about 
Him  in  the  Gospels. 

We  look  first  here  to  the  birth-narratives,  and  find 
that  these,  while  not  anticipating  the  pre-existence  doc- 
trine of  later  revelation,  ascribe  to  the  child  to  be  born 
of  the  Virgin  a  unique  and  incommunicable  dignity. 
"  God  shall  give  unto  Him  the  throne  of  His  father 
David."  *  He  is  the  goal  of  prophecy — the  Immanuel, 
"  God  with  us,"  of  Isaiah's  oracle.  He  is  Lord,  King, 
Saviour.  He  is  prepared  for  by  a  forerunner,  heralded 
by  angels,  worshipped  by  shepherds  and  Magi,  greeted 
by  prophetic  voices  in  the  Temple.  We  might  be  tempted 
to  set  this  down  to  poetry,  but,  when  we  advance  to  the 
history  in  the  Gospels,  we  find  that  everything  there 
corresponds.  No  one  can  read  the  Gospels  without  per- 
ceiving that  the  Evangelists  throughout  ascribe  an  abso- 
lute worth  to  Christ's  Person.  What  is  more,  Jesus 
Himself  does  the  same.  His  consciousness  of  a  unique 
dignity  is  seen  in  almost  every  statement  He  makes, 
every  act  He  performs.  His  universal  relation  to  hu- 
manity is  already  implie'd  in  His  favourite  designation 
for  Himself — "  Son  of  Man."  He  is  of  the  race,  yet  in 
a  manner  stands  apart  from  it.  He  belongs  to  humanity, 
yet  stands  as  Saviour  over  against  the  world  He  came 
to  save.  He  reveals  God  to  man,  and  man  to  himself, 
yet  is  not  merely  a  prophet,  but  above  all  prophets — the 
Son.  He  does  not  simply,  like  the  prophets,  bring  words 
»  Luke  i.  32. 


DOCTRINAL   BEARINGS  203 

of  God  to  men,  but  is  Himself  "  the  Truth  " — the  em- 
bodied revelation  of  God.  Throughout  He  is  identified 
with  His  message:  He  speaks  with  absolute  authority: 
"  But  I  say  unto  you  " ;  by  relation  to  Him  the  destinies 
of  men  are  determined.  ISTor  are  these  mere  empty 
claims  on  Christ's  part ;  they  can  be  verified.  The  ages 
have  accepted  Christ  at  His  own  valuation.  In  Him, 
the  conscience  of  the  world  being  judge,  there  is  pre- 
sented the  realised  ideal  of  humanity.  In  Him  we  have 
a  revelation  of  God  which  the  world  can  never  grow 
beyond.  In  Him  we  do  see  presented  the  type  of  the 
absolute  religious  relation  of  Sonship  to  God.  His 
thoughts  and  ideals  do  to-day  dominate  the  highest 
thought  and  sentiment  of  the  world.  In  Him  the  spir- 
itual forces  are  concentrated  on  which  we  depend  for  the 
world's  moral  and  spiritual  salvation. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  Person  unlike  every  other  in 
history;  who  stands  on  a  plane  infinitely  higher  than 
every  other;  whose  birth-hour,  as  we  proclaim  by  our 
very  manner  of  dating  our  letters,  divides  time  for  us 
into  two  great  sections — before  and  after  Christ; — One 
who,  sinless  in  character,  is  yet  more — perfect,  arche- 
typal man,  realisation  of  a  type  of  humanity  utterly  be- 
yond the  powers  of  nature  to  produce.  How  do  we  ac- 
count for  Him  ?  This  New  Redeeming  Head  of  the  race 
that  Schleiermacher  tells  us  of,  in  whom  the  God-con- 
sciousness had  absolute  supremacy ;  this  miracle  of  ideal 
perfection — "  ideal  man  " — whom  Keim  and  Beyschlag 


204  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

acknowledge ;  this  "  Revelation-Person,"  in  such  solidar- 
ity with  God  in  mind  and  purpose — in  His  appropria- 
tion of  the  divine  world-end  as  His  own — that  Ritschl 
will  have  us  ascribe  to  Him  "  Godhead  " — How  came 
He  to  be  there  ?  Will  natural  explanation  suffice  ?  Can 
you  explain  it  without  miracle  ? 

The  answer  which  our  Gospels  give  to  this  question, 
and  in  which  most  of  us,  I  think,  will  now  be  disposed 
to  agree,  is,  that  a  natural  explanation  does  not  suffice. 
It  did  not  suffice  for  the  explanation  of  the  Sinless  Per- 
sonality; it  will  not  suffice  for  the  new  Creative  Head 
of  humanity.  Paul  is  quoted  against  us  on  the  Virgin 
Birth.  But  assuredly  Paul  did  not  believe  that  One 
whom  He  expressly  puts  in  contrast  with  the  first  Adam 
as  the  new  Spiritual  Head  by  whose  obedience  the  bale- 
ful consequences  of  the  first  Adam's  transgression  were 
annulled,  and  righteousness  and  life  brought  to  the 
world,  was  Himself  a  natural  descendant  of  that  first 
Adam,  involved  in  the  liabilities  and  doom  attached  to 
his  sin.  This  is  simply  to  say  that,  however  Paul  con- 
ceived of  the  wonder,  he  did  not  believe  that  Christ  had 
a  non-miraculous  origin. 

This  is  the  Scriptural  answer ;  but  what  of  the  answer 
of  the  moderns?  The  thorough-going  humanitarians 
who  are  to-day  the  chief  opponents  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
will  hear  of  no  miracle  in  Christ's  origin  at  all.  I  have 
already  availed  myself  of  the  admission  of  others — 
mostly  now  of  older  date — Schleiermacher,  Keim,  Bey- 


DOCTRINAL   BEARINGS  205 

schlag,  and  the  like,  who  grant  that  there  must  have  been 
a  miracle  in  the  constitution  of  Christ's  Person,  though 
the  miracle  was  not  physical.  These  writers  do  not  con- 
cede the  full  truth  of  the  Incarnation;  to  them  Christ 
is  still  only  "  ideal  man,"  "  archetypal  man,"  "  Ke- 
vealer  " ;  but  even  so  they  grant  that  ordinary  genera- 
tion does  not  suffice  to  explain  Him — that  there  must 
have  been  in  His  origin  a  direct  creative  act.  Here,  for 
instance,  is  Schleiermacher,  who  anticipated  a  century 
ago  the  objections  with  which  we  are  familiar  to  the 
Virgin  Birth,  and  this  is  what  He  says :  "  Every  one 
who  accepts  in  the  Redeemer  a  sinlessness  of  nature  and 
a  new  creation  through  union  of  the  divine  with  the 
human,  postulates  in  this  sense  a  supernatural  genera- 
tion" (Erzeugung).1  Or  here  is  Keim.  After  pages 
of  argument  against  the  birth  from  the  Virgin,  what 
does  he  come  to  ?  This :  "  As  little  are  we  able  ...  to 
refrain  from  the  acknowledgment  that  in  the  Person  of 
Jesus  a  higher  human  organisation  [note  these  words] 
than  heretofore  was  called  into  being  by  that  creative 
will  of  God  that  runs  in  parallel  though  viewless  course 
side  by  side  with  the  processes  of  creaturely  procrea- 
tion." 2  I  value  these  admissions,  so  far  as  they  go. 
They  break  the  back  of  a  pure  naturalism,  and  seem  to 
me,  in  principle,  to  be  the  surrender  of  the  case. 

.  To  this,  of  course,  the  reply,  as  before,  will  be  given 
— "  Yes,   but  the  miracle   was  spiritual,   inward,   the 

1  Der  christ.  Glaube,  Sect.  97.  2  Jesus  of  Nazara,  II,  p.  64. 


206  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

bestowal  of  spiritual  endowment — not  physical."  But 
this  brings  me  back  to  the  old  point:  Can  we,  in  the 
establishing  of  such  a  new  creative  beginning, — in  the 
origination  of  One  who,  while  holding  of  humanity,  is 
yet  outside  the  chain  of  its  heredities  and  liabilities, — 
think  of  a  spiritual  miracle  which  has  not  also  its  phys- 
ical side  ?  I  contend  that  we  cannot.  We  have  heard 
even  Keim  speak  of  "  a  higher  human  organisation," 
which,  if  the  words  mean  anything,  surely  points  to  some- 
thing physical.  The  best  proof  of  all  of  the  inadequacy 
of  this  half-way  position  is  that,  historically,  it  has  never 
been  able  to  maintain  itself.  It  did  not  do  so  in  the 
school  of  Schleiermacher,  the  great  bulk  of  whose  dis- 
ciples— Meander,  Ullmann,  Tholuck,  and  the  rest — went 
on  to  the  full  acknowledgment  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  It 
did  not  do  so  in  the  school  represented  by  Keim,  which 
mostly  sank  down  to  the  level  of  pure  humanitarianism. 
Current  indications  show  that  the  same  fate  (or  return 
to  a  more  positive  position)  is  certain  to  attend  the  half- 
way position  of  a  section  of  the  school  of  Ritschl. 
Ritschl  himself,  while  laying  the  whole  weight  of  Chris- 
tianity on  what  he  called  the  "  revelation-value  "  of  the 
Person  of  Christ,  persistently  declined  to  discuss  how 
the  revelation  came  to  be  there :  how  Christ  came  to  be 
the  unique  Being  He  was.1  But  in  this  seeming  hu- 
mility, there  is  really  an  abdication  of  thought  on  ques- 
tions one  must  ask.  I  feel  sure  of  this,  that  any  one 
1  Cf.  Recht.  und  Versohnung,  III,  p.  426. 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  207 

who  applies  his  mind  earnestly  to  the  conditions  of  the 
problem,  even  as  Ritschl  states  it,  will  find  little  diffi- 
culty in  going  at  least  so  far  as  to  say  that  miracle  there 
was,  and  must  have  been,  in  the  origin  of  One,  sinless 
and  divinely  unique,  as  Jesus  was. 

Further  discussion  I  leave  to  my  last  lecture,  and 
close  here  by  again  emphasising  the  complete  distinction 
of  this  Christian  circle  of  conceptions  from  everything 
found  in  heathen  mythology.  A  supernatural  birth 
which  has  for  its  end  the  founding  of  a  new  humanity, 
and  the  introduction  by  a  Eedeemer  of  the  divine  forces 
needed  for  a  world's  salvation,  is  wide  as  the  poles  apart 
from  those  fables  of  the  lust  of  the  gods  with  which  the 
birth  of  the  mythical  heroes  of  paganism  is  associated. 


LECTURE    VIII 

DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  OF  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  :  THE  INCAR- 
NATION  SUMMARY  AND   CONCLUSION 

I  have  sought  in  the  preceding  lecture  to  show  that 
a  creative  miracle  is  implied  in  the  absolute  sinlessness 
of  Jesus,  and  in  His  uniqueness  as  the  Head  of  a  new 
humanity.  The  full  height  of  our  argument,  however, 
is  not  reached  till  we  go  a  step  higher,  and,  with  the 
universal  Church,  see  in  the  appearance  of  Christ  in 
our  world  the  entrance  of  a  true  divine  Being  into  hu- 
manity— the  Incarnation  of  the  Son.  I  come  now,  ac- 
cordingly, as  the  last  stage  in  this  long  journey,  to  show 
that,  if  miracle  is  implied  in  the  sinlessness  of  Christ, 
and  in  the  uniqueness  of  His  Person,  much  more  is  such 
a  miracle  as  the  Gospels  record  an  integral  part  of  the 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation. 

I  have  always  felt  it  astonishing  that  any  one  should 
hold  the  Virgin  Birth  to  be  inconsistent  with,  or  ex- 
cluded by,  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  the  Son 
of  God,  as  taught  by  Paul  and  John.  The  idea,  I  sup- 
pose, is  that  the  narratives  of  the  birth  of  Christ  say 
nothing  about  His  pre-existence,  but  speak  as  if  He 

208 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  209 

first  began  to  be  at  His  birth  at  Bethlehem.  And  it  may 
at  once  be  granted  that  the  narratives  in  the  Gospels  say 
nothing  of  pre-existenee.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  the  full  mystery  of  our  Lord's  Person  was  unlocked 
to  Mary,  or  to  any  in  that  early  circle.  The  Saviour 
had  to  be  manifested  in  His  life,  work,  claims,  death, 
resurrection,  and  exaltation  to  the  right  hand  of  power, 
before  it  could  be  fully  seen  Who  or  What  He  was,  and 
how  far  the  compass  of  His  Being  reached.  This,  of 
itself,  as  before  urged,  is  an  evidence  of  the  early  date 
and  primitive  character  of  these  narratives  of  the  Virgin 
Birth,  that  they  are  so  entirely  uninfluenced  by  the 
views  of  the  pre-existence  and  essential  divine  dignity 
of  the  Son  which  are  developed  in  the  Apostolic  writings. 
It  is  all  there  already,  perhaps,  in  germ — this  higher 
truth  of  the  Lord's  Person.  It  was  not  credible,  to  any 
mind  reflecting  deeply  on  it,  that  One  who  had  so  super- 
natural, so  directly  divine,  an  origin, — of  whom  the 
angel  could  say,  "  He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  the  Most  High  " — "  the  Lord  God  shall  give 
unto  Him  the  throne  of  His  father  David  " — "  He  shall 
reign  over  the  house  of  Jacob  for  ever ;  and  of  His  King- 
dom there  shall  be  no  end  " — "  that  which  is  to  be  born 
shall  be  called  holy,  the  Son  of  God,"  1 — should  not  be 
more  than  human.  Such  expressions  stretch  out  at  least 
to  meet  the  later  pre-existence  doctrine.  They  need,  to 
sustain  their  significance,  a  frame  as  ample  as  that 
1  Luke  i.  32-5. 


210  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

which  the  Apostolic  doctrine  yields.  The  Evangelist 
Matthew  made  no  mistake  when  he  read  unto  them  the 
whole  meaning  of  the  great  Isaianic  prophecy  of  Im- 
manuel. 

It  was  all  there,  perhaps,  in  germ ;  but  it  was  not  yet 
unfolded.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Apostolic  doctrine  of 
the  pre-existence  of  the  Son  does  not  exclude,  but,  if  you 
assume  that  this  pre-existent  Being  was  actually  born 
as  a  man,  positively  requires  us  to  postulate  a  miraculous 
birth.  That  seems  to  me  as  self-evident  a  proposition 
as  the  mind  of  man  can  frame.  It  is  sometimes  said 
by  those  who  argue  for  the  opposite  view  (e.  g.,  Sabatier 
and  Lobstein),  that  Paul  and  John  did  not  need  this 
explanation ;  they  had  a  better  one.1  But  this  does  not 
touch  the  point  at  all.  That  Jesus  had  a  pre-existent 
life — was  Son  of  God  in  a  transcendent  or  "  metaphys- 
ical "  sense,  which  is  what  these  writers  mean  by  a 
"  better  "  explanation — does  not  touch  this  other  ques- 
tion which  has  yet  to  be  faced :  How  did  this  pre-existent 
Son  become  man  ?  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  it  is  the  doc- 
trine of  these  Apostles  that  He  did  become  man.  "  The 
Word  became  flesh."  2  It  is  not  the  Logos  or  Word  in 
His  abstract  being,  but  the  Logos  incarnate,  that  inter- 
ests John.  The  burden  of  his  teaching  is  that  Jesus 
Christ  has  "  come  in  the  flesh."  3  So,  if,  as  Lobstein 
says,  "  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  in  the  mind  of  [Paul] 

1  Lobstein,  Virgin  Birth,  p.  57.  a  John  i.  14. 

a  I  John  iv.  2. 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  211 

the  Lord's  personality  has  a  heavenly  origin,"  *  it  can 
as  little  be  doubted  that  in  Paul's  mind  this  heavenly 
Person  entered  by  birth  into  the  conditions  of  a  true 
human  existence.  "  Being  in  the  form  of  God  .  .  . 
He  emptied  Himself,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  being 
made  [becoming]  in  the  likeness  of  men."  2  He  "  was 
born  [became]  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the 
flesh  "  3  was  "  born  [became]  of  a  woman."  4  How, 
then,  was  this  entrance  into  humanity  accomplished? 
Was  it  docetically — in  mere  seeming?  Assuredly  not, 
in  the  view  of  these  Apostles.  It  was  a  true  humanity 
which  Christ  assumed.  He  came  truly  in  the  flesh. 
There  was  a  true  entrance  into  human  life  by  a  birth. 
But  such  a  birth,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  was  a  mira- 
cle. What  was  the  nature  of  the  miracle  ?  Do  not  the 
narratives  of  the  Virgin  Birth  supply  the  answer  ? 

The  reply  has  already  been  dealt  with  that  there  is 
no  trace  of  such  a  miraculous  birth  in  the  writings  of 
Paul  and  John.  Even  if  it  were  so — even  were  it  ad- 
mitted that  Paul  and  John  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
Virgin  Birth,  or  did  not  reflect  on  the  subject — I  would 
point  out  that  the  fact  of  Christ's  being  born  stands 
there  just  the  same,  and  the  problem  still  awaits  solution 
of  how  the  miracle  of  the  Incarnation  came  about.  But 
is  it  in  the  least  likely  that  Paul  did  not  reflect  on  it  ? — 
Paul,  whose  mind  was  so  logical,  who  carried  out  his 

»  Op.  tit,  p.  63.  «  Phil.  ii.  6,  7. 

3  Rom.  i.  3.  «  Gal.  iv.  4. 


212  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

principles  so  consistently,  who  in  his  later  Epistles 
(Ephesians,  Colossians)  traces  the  implications  of  his 
Christology  and  of  Christ's  Mediatorship  in  their  cos- 
mological  aspects  in  so  vast  and  bold  a  way — is  it  likely 
that  he  would  be  so  utterly  oblivious  of  the  problem 
raised  on  the  human  side  by  his  own  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation,  or  would  remain  unconcerned  about  it  J  Or 
would  John? 

I  have  tried  to  show  in  previous  lectures  that  Paul 
did  reflect  on  this  problem.1  Not  to  go  back  on  what 
was  then  said,  take  only  that  great  liturgical  passage  in 
I  Tim.  iii.  16.  Paul  shows  there  with  sufficient  clear- 
ness his  sense  of  the  profundity  of  the  problem :  "  With- 
out controversy,  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness  " ;  and 
in  the  next  clause  he  tells  us  where,  in  his  view,  the 
essence  of  the  mystery  lies :  "  Who  was  manifest  in  the 
flesh."  Whether,  therefore,  Paul  had  the  full  answer 
to  the  problem  or  not — and  I  have  given  reasons  for 
thinking  that  he  was  not  ignorant  of  it — he  knew  at 
least  that  the  problem  was  there,  and  that  the  constitu- 
tion of  Christ's  humanity  was  in  some  sense  miraculous. 
The  case  is  even  clearer  in  regard  to  John.  There  is  no 
doubt,  really,  that  John  knew  of  the  Gospel  histories  of 
Christ's  supernatural  birth,  and  there  is  just  as  little 
doubt  in  my  own  mind  that  he  cordially  accepted  them 
as  a  solution  of  his  own  problem  of  how  the  Word  be- 
came flesh. 

»See  above,  pp.  116  ff. 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  213 

Objection,  however,  may  now  be  taken  on  the  ground 
— no  doubt  in  some  cases  will  be  taken — that,  even 
granting  all  that  we  affirm,  this  idea  of  an  Incarnation 
of  a  pre-existent  divine  Being,  going  so  far  beyond  the 
simpler  conceptions  of  the  birth-narratives,  is,  after  all, 
only  a  metaphysical  speculation  of  Paul's  and  John's 
own,  borrowed  from  Philonism — a  quasi-philosophical 
form  in  which  these  Apostles  sought  to  embody  their 
impressions  of  Christ's  greatness — and,  therefore,  can- 
not be  legitimately  used  as  a  basis  for  arguing  back,  in 
our  day,  to  the  Virgin  Birth.  I  said  at  the  commence- 
ment that  it  was  no  part  of  my  business  to  discuss  the 
reality  of  the  Incarnation,  but,  by  way  of  clearing  the 
ground,  a  word  or  two  may  be  said  on  the  point  now 
raised. 

The  best  way  of  removing  any  feeling  of  the  kind 
now  expressed  is  to  keep  clearly  in  mind  how  the  con- 
ception of  Christ's  pre-existence  and  divine  Sonship  was 
actually  reached.  It  did  not  arise,  as  the  objection  as- 
sumes, from  metaphysical  speculation.  It  arose  from 
facts  which  were  the  common  possession  of  the  Church ; 
and  it  was  not  a  conception  peculiar  to  these  Apostles, 
but,  as  we  see  from  their  writings,  was  widely  shared 
by  the  Church  of  their  day.1 

1.  First,  as  the  basis  of  this  conception,  came  the  life 
of  Christ  Himself — His  words,  works,  claims,  the  pre- 
rogatives He  ascribed  to  Himself,  the  profound  personal 
JSee  above,  p.  161. 


214  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

impression  He  made  on  His  disciples,  which  won  them 
to  the  confession  that  He  was  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Messiah — a  Person  superhuman  in  character,  attributes, 
and  functions.  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God,"  *  confessed  Peter.  We  see  this  fact-basis 
of  the  Apostolic  conviction  most  clearly  of  all  in  John — 
the  most  transcendental  of  the  Apostles  in  His  estimate 
of  Christ.  John  did  not  reason  down  from  some  meta- 
physical conception  of  the  Logos  to  the  divine  dignity 
of  Christ ;  he  rose  to  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  the  Incar- 
nate Word  from  what  he  had  seen  and  heard  of  Him  in 
His  earthly  manifestation.  His  feet  were  on  the  earth 
all  the  time.  "  That  which  we  have  heard,"  he  says, 
"  that  which  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  that  which 
we  beheld,  and  our  hands  handled,  concerning  the  Word 
of  life  .  .  .  that  which  we  have  seen  and  heard  declare 
we  unto  you."  2  "  The  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us,  and  we  beheld  His  glory,  glory  as  of  the  only 
begotten  of  the  father,  full  of  grace  and  truth."  3 

2.  Next,  after  the  shock  and  temporary  eclipse  of  the 
Cross  and  Tomb,  came  the  resurrection  in  power,  fol- 
lowed by  the  brief,  memorable  period  of  intercourse  of 
the  disciples  with  their  Risen  Lord,  the  exaltation  to 
heaven,  and,  finally,  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  at 
Pentecost;  and  in  the  light  of  it  all,  coupled  with  the 
hope  of  His  Return,  they  saw  their  Master  to  be  in  the 
fullest  sense  divine.  The  resurrection  and  exaltation 
«  Matt.  xvi.  16.  2 1  John  i.  1,  3.  a  John  i.  14. 


DOCTRINAL   BEARINGS  215 

threw  back  an  illuminating,  magnifying  light  on  the 
teaching,  works,  and  claims  of  His  earthly  life — "  de- 
clared [or  "  denned  "]  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power 
by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,"  *  says  Paul — and  it 
became  clearly  manifest  to  their  minds  how  that  here 
divine  greatness  and  love  had  been  humbling  itself  to 
suffering  and  shame  for  man's  redemption. 

3.  But  now — and  here  is  a  point  I  think  important — 
to  recognise  Christ  in  the  light  of  His  heavenly  glory  as 
a  divine  Person  was  already  to  affirm  His  pre-existence ; 
for  reflection  must  at  once  show  us  that  divinity  is  not  a 
thing  you  can  make  or  unmake.  If  Christ  is  divine 
now,  He  has  in  nature  ever  been  divine ;  the  temporal  in 
His  earthly  manifestation  is  discovered  to  be  but  the 
veil  of  the  eternal ;  His  presence  on  earth  was  the  rev- 
elation of  an  eternal  life  He  had  with  the  Father.  With 
this  agree  His  own  words  which  John  has  preserved 
about  a  heaven  from  which  He  had  descended,  and  a 
glory  He  had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was.2 

Such,  then,  is  the  conception  of  Christ's  Person  which 
lies  at  the  basis  of  the  Apostolic  doctrine ;  and,  accept- 
ing that  doctrine,  we  see  at  once  how  stupendous  a 
miracle  is  implied  in  it.  Christ's  birth,  we  are  to  re- 
member, is  not  the  origin  of  His  Personality,  but  only 
its  entrance  into  the  conditions  of  a  human  life.  But 
that  entrance  was  a  real  one.  The  Son  of  God  became 
man.  Now  this  is  miracle:  the  very  constitution  of 
i  Rom.  i.  3.  «  John  vi.  33,  38;  viii.  58;  xvii.  5,  etc. 


216  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

such  a  divine  and  human  Person  is  miracle:  the  most 
astounding  miracle,  as  said  before,  the  universe  has  ever 
seen.  "  Ask  it  in  the  depth,  or  in  the  height  above," 
said  Isaiah  to  Ahaz,  and,  on  the  refusal  of  the  king,  the 
prophet  declared  that  the  Lord  Himself  would  give  him 
a  sign — that  of  the  virgin  (or  maiden)  who  should  con- 
ceive and  bear  the  child  Immanuel.1  God  has  fulfilled 
His  word,  and  in  the  Incarnation  has  given  us  a  sign 
greater  than  anything  in  the  depth  beneath  or  in  the 
height  above.  And  when  we  think  of  the  wonder  of  this 
divine  One  who  has  appeared  in  our  midst,  and  of  the 
glory  to  which  He  has  now  been  raised — "  angels,  and 
authorities,  and  powers,"  as  Peter  says,  "  being  made 
subject  to  Him  "  2 — do  we  not  feel  that  faith  postulates 
a  beginning  which  shall  correspond  with  the  end — a  be- 
ginning as  unique  as  the  event  itself  is  without  parallel  ? 
Here  also  we  reach  the  final  point  of  view  for  seeing 
the  absolute  distinction  between  the  Scriptural  doctrine 
of  Christ's  origin,  and  anything  found  in  heathen  myth- 
ology. As  analogies  have  been  sought  in  heathenism  for 
the  Virgin  Birth,  so  analogies  have  been  put  forward 
also  for  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation. 
Heathenism  has,  indeed,  its  incarnations  of  gods  in 
beasts  and  men.  But  the  differences  between  these  and 
the  Christian  conception  of  the  Son  of  God  becoming 
man  are  practically  infinite.  The  heathen  incarnations 
are  many:  Christianity  knows  of  but  one.  In  the 
as.  vii.  Uff.  » I  Pet.  iii.  16. 


DOCTRINAL   BEARINGS  217 

heathen  incarnations  there  is  no  idea  of  a  true  and  per- 
manent union  of  a  divine  being  with  a  humanity  which 
becomes  his  for  ever;  in  Christianity  the  union  is  per- 
fect and  abiding.  The  heathen  incarnations  are  repeated 
over  and  over  in  different  forms.  Vishnu,  e.  g.,  has 
many  Avatars  —  in  fish,  in  tortoise,  in  boar,  in  lion. 
Only  when  we  come  to  the  eighth  have  we  the  incarna- 
tion in  the  hero  Krishna.  The  Son,  in  Christianity,  is 
incarnate  once  and  for  ever.  The  heathen  incarnations 
are  monstrous,  immoral,  degrading;  always  purely 
mythological.  In  Christianity  we  have  the  assumption 
of  a  holy  humanity  for  holy  ends;  and  the  act  is  his- 
torical, with  its  result  in  an  actual  human  life,  death, 
and  resurrection,  which  can  be  historically  verified.  The 
idea  of  incarnation  itself  is  different.  In  Christianity  a 
Divine  Being  voluntarily  unites  Himself  with  the  race 
for  holy  and  redeeming  ends.  Heathenism  has  no  such 
conception. 

We  are  now  well  within  sight  of  the  conclusion  of  our 
inquiry ;  but  there  is  yet  one  step  remaining  to  be  taken, 
which  to  some  may  seem  the  most  crucial  of  all,  though 
it  is  not  really  so.  I  have  sought  in  these  lectures  to 
impress  you  with  the  conviction  that  a  miracle  is  in- 
volved in  the  constitution  of  the  Saviour's  Person — 
even  in  His  sinlessness  and  archetypal  manhood — su- 
premely in  His  Incarnation.  I  have  further  sought  to 
show  that  this  miracle  is  not  simply  an  inward  or  spir- 


218  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

itual  miracle,  but  has  a  physical  side  as  well.  But  now 
it  will  be  asked :  "  Yes,  but  does  this  show  that  the  mira- 
cle must  take  the  form  of  birth  from  a  Virgin  ?  "  Let 
it  be  granted  that  there  is  a  miracle ;  let  the  miracle  be 
as  stupendous  as  you  please ;  grant  that  it  involved  the 
physical  as  well  as  the  spiritual  side  of  Christ's  hu- 
manity ;  this  will  prove  at  most,  it  may  be  said,  a  super- 
natural factor  in  Christ's  birth,  but  not  necessarily  the 
Virgin  Birth  of  the  Gospels.  Can  that  be  shown  to  be 
a  form  which  this  miracle  of  Incarnation  must  neces- 
sarily assume? 

My  reply  to  this,  in  the  first  place,  must  be  that,  in 
the  nature  of  the  case,  the  particular  form  which  the 
miracle  of  the  Incarnation  shall  assume  is  not  a  matter 
which  can  be  laid  down  a  priori.  It  is  God  Himself 
who  must  say  in  what  way  He  shall  accomplish  this  won- 
der. What  we  do  see  is,  that  there  must  be  a  miracle  in 
the  constitution  of  such  a  Person  as  Christ  is,  and  we 
turn  to  history — not  to  a  priori  speculation — to  see  what 
form  the  miracle  actually  did  take.  It  may  be  impos- 
sible to  show  a  priori  that  the  supernatural  origin  neces- 
sarily implies  a  Virgin  Birth;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
if  the  existence  of  a  supernatural  factor  in  the  bodily 
origin  of  Jesus  is  admitted,  assuredly  all  a  priori  objec- 
tion to  the  Virgin  Birth  vanishes,  and  few,  in  fact,  who 
accept  the  one  will  be  found  stumbling  at  the  other.  This 
is  the  connection  between  the  propositions  I  have  been 
advancing  and  the  narratives  in  the  Gospels.  The  record 


DOCTRINAL   BEARINGS  219 

in  the  Gospels  simply  supplies,  in  the  form  of  history, 
what  faith,  on  its  own  grounds,  postulates.  The  history, 
therefore,  becomes  credible,  and  worthy  of  all  accepta- 
tion. For  that  at  which  naturalism  stumbles  in  the 
Synoptic  narratives  is  not  simply  the  form  of  the  mira- 
cle, but  the  idea  of  a  miraculous  conception  in  any  form. 
If  once  it  is  granted  that  a  new  act  of  the  Creative 
Cause  enters  into  the  production  of  Christ's  humanity, 
what  is  there  longer  incredible  in  the  supposition  that 
it  should  enter  in  the  manner  which  the  Gospels  repre- 
sent? Along  this  line  of  consideration,  even  if  there 
were  nothing  else,  the  doctrinal  significance  of  the  Vir- 
gin Birth  is  put  on  a  secure  footing.  For  if  #iis  was, 
de  facto,  the  form  which  the  miracle  of  the  Incarnation 
assumed,  beyond  question  the  Virgin  Birth  encloses  in 
it,  whether  we  can  see  it  or  not,  the  whole  "  mystery  of 
godliness." 

But  is  it  the  case  that  we  can  see  no  reason  for  the 
miracle  assuming  this  form?  No  reason,  at  least,  in 
congruity,  if  not  in  actual  necessity?  Let  me,  as  the 
concluding  part  of  my  argument,  ask  you  to  look  rever- 
ently at  this  question. 

I  assume  here  the  result  of  my  previous  reasoning, 
that,  if  miracle  is  concerned  in  the  birth  of  Christ  at  all, 
it  is  impossible  to  stop  short  of  the  conclusion  that  the 
miracle  must  be,  in  part,  a  physical  one.  The  Te  Deum 
sings :  "  When  thou  tookest  upon  thee  to  deliver  man, 
thou  didst  not  abhor  the  Virgin's  womb."    Every  birth 


220  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

is  in  a  sense  a  miracle — a  mystery  of  God.  Ps.  cxxxix. 
says :  "  My  frame  was  not  hidden  from  thee,  when  I 
was  made  in  secret,  and  curiously  wrought  in  the  lowest 
parts  of  the  earth.  Thine  eyes  did  see  my  imperfect 
substance,  and  in  thy  book  were  all  my  members  writ- 
ten, which  day  by  day  were  fashioned,  when  as  yet  there 
was  none  of  them."  1  Similarly,  the  miracle  of  the  In- 
carnation, whatever  the  nature  of  it,  was  one  wrought 
in  the  secrecy  of  the  mother's  being.  This  is  the  fact 
overlooked  by  mediating  writers  like  Prof.  Fricke,  of 
Leipzig,  who  cannot  understand  why  any  one  should 
take  offence  at  the  article,  "  Conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  yet  objects  to  any  one  dragging  down  this  ex- 
pression into  the  region  of  what  he  calls  "  the  phys- 
iological." 2  In  one  respect  the  protest  of  this  writer  is 
justified.  Nothing  is  more  objectionable  than  the  at- 
tempt sometimes  made  to  give  a  sensuous  interpretation 
to  the  words  of  Luke  about  the  miraculous  conception. 
Talk  about  "  physical  filiation  "  such  as  one  meets  with 
even  in  Lobstein,3  suggests  pagan  analogies,  and  is 
wholly  out  of  place  in  connection  with  the  creative 
energy  of  a  purely  Spiritual  Agent,  such  as  the  Holy 

1  Ps.  cxxxix.  15,  16. 

*Christlich£  Welt,  27  Oct.,  1892;  cf.  my  Ritschlianism,  p.  234. 
Prof.  Fricke,  like  others  of  this  mediating  tendency,  stops  short  of  a 
complete  Incarnation.  Jesus  is  to  him  One  who  has  the  Spirit 
without  measure — the  Incomparable  One.  Naturally,  therefore, 
there  is  weakness  in  his  view  of  the  Virgin  Birth. 

» Op.  cit.,  pp.  67,  126. 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  221 

Spirit  is  conceived  to  be.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  undoubtedly  regarded  as,  in  Lobstein's  words, 
"  the  author  of  the  corporeal  and  material  life  of  Jesus," 
and  this  physical  result  of  His  action  is  not  to  be  lost 
sight  of. 

I  recognise,  then,  to  the  full  a  miracle  in  the  origin 
of  Jesus  which  involved  His  bodily  nature.  I  desire 
neither  to  minimise  nor  to  explain  away  the  miracle. 
To  me  the  stupendous  miracle  is  always  the  Incarna- 
tion itself,  and  any  lesser  miracle  which  is  involved  in 
that  loses  its  power  to  offend.  This  is  why,  in  these 
discussions,  I  have  laid  no  stress  on  the  interesting  facts 
of  "  Parthenogenesis,"  or  virgin  births  in  nature,  some- 
times brought  forward  as  throwing  light  on  the  birth  of 
Christ.  I  do  not  say  that  these  facts  have  no  bearing 
on  the  subject ;  in  some  respects  they  have  a  very  close 
bearing.  It  has  been  plausibly  argued  by  Mr.  Grifnth- 
Jones,  e.  g.,  in  his  book,  Ascent  Through  Christ,  on  the 
ground  of  these  facts  of  parthenogenesis,  that,  if  the 
Virgin  Birth  is  above  nature,  it  is  not  contrary  to  na- 
ture ; 1  and  this,  by  consent  of  scientific  men  themselves, 
must  be  admitted.  It  was  Prof.  Huxley  who  wrote, 
as  quoted  by  Dr.  Gore :  "  The  mysteries  of  the  Church 
are  child's  play  compared  with  the  mysteries  of  Nature. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  more  puzzling  than 
the  necessary  antinomies  of  physical  speculation ;  virgin 
procreation  and  resuscitation  from  apparent  death  are 
1  Ascent  Through  Christ,  p.  262. 


222  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

ordinary  phenomena  for  the  naturalist."  *  Prof.  G.  J. 
Romanes,  too,  in  his  Darwin  and  After  Darwin,  makes 
the  remarkable  statement :  "  Even  if  a  virgin  has  ever 
conceived  and  borne  a  son,  and  even  if  such  a  fact  in 
the  human  species  has  been  unique,  it  would  not  betoken 
any  breach  of  physiological  continuity."  2  This  accords 
with  what  one  frequently  observes  in  the  miracles  of 
Scripture.  Miracle  may  transcend  nature  altogether, 
as  in  the  raising  of  the  dead ;  but  more  commonly  mira- 
cle is  a  heightening  or  utilising  of  powers  already  in- 
herent in  nature.  The  supernatural  is  grafted  on  the 
natural.  Parthenogenesis,  up  to  a  certain  point,  is  a 
fact  in  nature,  and  has  this  value,  that  it  shows  that 
Virgin  Birth  is  inherently  a  possibility,  and  repels  the 
objection  sometimes  made  that  such  a  birth  would  not 
give  a  complete  humanity.3 

Still  the  question  will  be  pressed,  Why  parthenogen- 
esis? Why  not  simply  a  heightening  of  the  ordinary 
powers  of  nature,  for  which  we  have  at  least  Old  Testa- 
ment precedents  ?  Why  this  superfluous  miracle  ?  But 
is  there  not  a  very  obvious  answer  to  this  question  ?  In 
the  Old  Testament  examples — Isaac,  Samson,  Samuel 
— you  have  a  supernatural  heightening  of  the  powers  of 
nature,  indeed — but  to  what  end  ?  Not  to  the  overstep- 
ping of  nature  in  any  degree  in  the  result,  but  only  to 

1  Gore,  Bampton  Lects.,  p.  247.  2  p.  119. 

3  Cf .  R.  J.  Campbell,  quoted  above,  p.  3. 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  223 

the  production  by  way  of  nature  of  beings  who  are  en- 
tirely natural — men  and  nothing  more.  Isaac,  though 
the  seed  of  promise,  had  no  peculiar  distinction  even  as 
a  man.  Samson,  though  endowed  by  the  Spirit  with 
superhuman  strength,  was  assuredly  no  model  for  imita- 
tion. Ethically  he  was  a  piece  of  the  commonest  of 
human  clay.  Samuel  was  a  distinguished  prophet,  but 
still  simply  a  man.  John  the  Baptist,  Christ's  own  fore- 
runner— another  child  of  promise — though  Jesus  said 
of  him  that  among  those  born  of  women  there  had  not 
arisen  a  greater,  was  yet  profoundly  conscious  of  his 
inferiority  to  Him  whose  way  he  came  to  prepare,  and 
Jesus  Himself  declared  that  one  but  little  in  His  King- 
dom was  greater  than  he.1  All  these  were  sinful  men. 
In  no  case  in  the  world's  history  has  natural  generation 
issued  in  a  being  who  is  sinless,  not  to  say  superhuman. 
But  here  in  Jesus  is  One  who,  as  we  have  seen,  is  not 
only  sinless  and  archetypal,  but  has  in  Him  all  the  poten- 
cies of  Godhead.  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  expect  that  His 
manner  of  entering  the  world  will  be  also  different  from 
that  of  others  ? 

Assuming  this  to  be  so,  as  a  general  presumption,  I 
think  we  can  see  at  least  some  reasons  why  the  miracle 
involved  in  the  Incarnation  should  take  this  form  of  a 
Virgin  Birth. 

1.  When  the  question  is  put:  Why,  granting  a  cre- 
ative miracle  in  Christ's  origin,  the  conditions  might  not 

iMatt.  xi.  11. 


224  THE  VIRGIN   BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

be  met  by  ordinary  generation,  may  not  the  reply  be 
given — Cui  bono  I  "  Conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost  " — 
does  not  this  explain  all  ?  If  a  creative  origin  is  in  any 
case  postulated,  why  the  complication  with  a  second  and 
external  factor,  namely,  the  paternal?  The  objector 
asks :  Why  a  superfluous  miracle  ?  But  may  it  not  be 
legitimately  retorted  that,  seeing  the  miracle  is  already 
there,  the  superfluity  consists  in  his  own  insistence  on 
the  element  of  human  paternity  ?  The  creative  miracle 
we  assume,  remember,  is  one  that  goes  down  to  the  foun- 
dations of  life  in  the  mother.  Does  not  such  a  miracle 
of  itself  supersede  human  fatherhood  ? 

2.  Again,  the  Incarnation  is  an  event  sui  generis,  and 
we  have  seen  reason  to  expect  that  there  will  be  some- 
thing in  the  manner  of  it  also  sui  generis.  It  is  reason- 
able, that  is,  to  think  that  there  will  be  something  in 
the  mode  of  the  Incarnation  that  will  unambiguously 
proclaim  its  extraordinary  character ;  that  will  draw  at- 
tention to  it  as  an  event  wholly  unique,  exceptional,  un- 
exampled, in  the  history  of  mankind.  Plainly,  under 
the  conditions  of  ordinary  paternity,  this  exceptional 
character  of  Christ's  origin  would  have  been  veiled,  if 
not  nullified.  By  His  birth  from  a  Virgin  it  is  thrown 
into  strongest  relief.  This  is  the  right  use,  it  seems  to 
me,  to  make  of  the  Old  Testament  analogies,  which,  so 
far  as  they  go,  favour  my  contention.  They  show  that, 
when  God  has  a  new  beginning  to  make,  or  a  great  work 
to  do,  even  if  it  be  by  ordinary  men,  He  takes  pains  to 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  225 

mark  tne  fact  by  some  signal  interposition.  How  much 
more  in  this  new  creative  beginning,  which  transcends 
all  previous  analogies !  Luke,  probably,  has  this  thought 
in  his  mind  in  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  which  he  connects 
with  his  narrative.  In  that  genealogy,  you  observe,  he 
carries  back  the  descent  of  Jesus  not,  like  Matthew,  to 
David  and  Abraham  simply,  but  to  Adam,  whom  he 
significantly  names  "  the  Son  of  God."  *  Jesus  also,  at 
the  commencement,  is  "  Son  of  God."  There  is  un- 
mistakably a  meaning  in  this.  In  Luke,  as  in  Paul, 
Jesus  is  brought  into  direct  comparison  with  Adam,  the 
head  of  the  first  creation,  and  "  figure  of  Him  that  was 
to  come."  2  And  the  point  of  comparison  can  only  be 
that  Adam  was  not,  like  the  others  in  list,  a  son  of  man 
by  ordinary  generation,  but  took  his  origin  directly  at 
the  hands  of  God.  Evolution,  as  I  have  tried  to  show 
elsewhere,3  does  not  contradict  this  view,  but,  as  I  think, 
confirms  it.  Whatever  light  evolution  may  throw  on 
secondary  factors,  there  seems  little  doubt  that  direct 
creative  action  is  also  involved  in  man's  origin,  both  in 
body  and  in  soul.  Luke  would  seem  to  imply  that  was 
so  also  in  Christ's  case.  The  Gospels  show  us  the 
manner. 

3.  There  is  a  third  consideration  in  this  connection 
which  Dorner  specially  emphasises.4  We  do  not  lean  to 
a  Eoman  Catholic  doctrine  of  immaculate  conception 

•  Luke  iii.  38;  cf.  Matt.  i.  1.  2  Rom.  v.  14. 

*  Cf.  my  book,  God's  Image  in  Man.     *  Cf .  my  Ritschlianism,  p.  237. 


226  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

when  we  say  that  in  Mary  a  fitting  instrument  was  pre- 
pared in  mind  and  body  for  this  supreme  function  of 
being  the  mother  of  the  Redeemer.  But  natural  genera- 
tion involves  the  introduction  of  another  influence — of 
a  strain  of  a  different  quality  and  kind.  Was  there 
then  a  second  and  male  parent  prepared,  as  there  was  a 
female?  Or  would  not  the  mingling  of  different  and 
inferior  influences  have  been  a  positive  drawback  for 
the  end  contemplated — a  disturbance  calling  for  a  new 
miracle  to  counteract  and  correct  it?  Natural  genera- 
tion, on  this  view,  does  not  afford  relief  from  miracle, 
but  rather  doubles  the  miracle. 

Gathering  up  the  threads  of  my  reasoning,  I  think 
I  may  claim  to  have  proved  that  it  is  a  very  superficial 
view  which  affirms  that  there  is  no  doctrinal  connection 
between  the  Virgin  Birth  and  the  fact  of  the  Incarna- 
tion. I  grant  at  once,  as  I  have  done  earlier,  that  for  a 
naturalistic  Christ  you  do  not  need  a  supernatural 
origin.  More — if  you  do  not  hold  a  supernatural  Christ, 
you  will  not  long  retain  belief  in  a  supernatural  origin. 
On  the  other  hand,  when  you  have  the  certainty  of  the 
Incarnation,  the  whole  force  of  that  certainty  will  be 
thrown  into  the  scale  of  the  Gospel  narratives.  In  the 
Virgin  Birth  you  will  feel  that  you  have  what  you  might 
most  naturally  expect  in  such  a  new  creative  beginning. 
It  is  the  form  of  miracle  which  most  clearly  corresponds 
with  the  nature  of  the  fact.  Our  faith  in  the  event  does 
not,  of  course,  rest  on  the  power  of  our  minds  to  deduce 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  227 

it  from  the  Incarnation,  but  on  the  history;  but,  with 
faith  in  the  Incarnation  to  start  with,  and  the  admission 
of  the  necessity  of  a  miracle  of  some  kind,  as  involved 
in  that,  we  may  readily  perceive  the  fitness  and  credi- 
bility of  the  miracle  as  recorded. 

Here,  then,  I  conclude  my  argument,  and,  in  doing 
so,  it  may  be  convenient  that  I  should  briefly  recapitulate 
the  chief  positions  I  have  endeavoured  to  establish.  I 
may  sum  them  up  thus : 

1.  The  only  two  narratives  we  have  of  the  birth  of 
Jesus  tell  us  that  He  was  born  of  a  Virgin. 

2.  The  Gospels  containing  these  narratives  are  genu- 
ine documents  of  the  Apostolic  Age. 

3.  The  texts  of  these  narratives  have  come  down  to  us 
in  their  integrity. 

4.  The  two  narratives  of  the  Virgin  Birth  are  inde- 
pendent. 

5.  The  narratives,  nevertheless,  are  not  contradictory, 
but  are  complementary  and  corroborative  of  each  other. 

6.  There  are  strongest  reasons  for  believing  that  Mat- 
thew's narrative  comes  from  the  circle  of  Joseph,  and 
Luke's  from  the  circle  of  Mary. 

7.  The  Gospel  of  Mark,  which  embraces  only  the  pub- 
lic ministry  of  Jesus,  does  not  contradict  the  other  nar- 
ratives. 

8.  The  Gospel  of  John  does  not  contradict  the  other 
narratives,  but  presupposes  them. 


228  THE  VIRGIN  BIRTH  OF  CHRIST 

9.  John  unquestionably  knew  the  earlier  Gospels,  and 
is  traditionally  identified  with  opposition  to  the  earliest 
known  impugner  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  Cerinthus. 

10.  Paul  does  not  contradict  the  Virgin  Birth.  On 
the  contrary,  Luke,  a  chief  witness  of  the  Virgin  Birth, 
was  the  companion  of  Paul,  and  Paul's  language  seems 
to  presuppose  some  knowledge  of  the  fact. 

11.  The  doctrine  of  Paul  and  John — as  of  the  New 
Testament  generally — implies  a  miracle  in  the  origin  of 
Christ. 

12.  The  Gospels  containing  the  narratives  of  Christ's 
birth  were,  so  far  as  known,  received  without  question 
by  the  Church  from  their  first  appearance. 

13.  With  the  exceptions  of  the  Ebionites — the  nar- 
rowest section  of  the  Jewish  Christians — and  some  of 
the  Gnostic  sects,  the  Church  from  Apostolic  times  uni- 
versally accepted  the  fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  The 
Nazarenes,  or  main  body  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  ac- 
cepted it. 

14.  The  early  Church  set  high  value  on  the  Virgin 
Birth  doctrinally,  as  attesting  (1)  the  true  humanity  of 
Christ,  and  (2)  His  superhuman  dignity. 

15.  The  prophecy  of  Isaiah  vii.  14  is  rightly  applied 
by  Matthew  to  the  birth  of  Jesus. 

16.  Yet,  as  most  critics  now  admit,  this  prophecy  was 
applied  by  no  one  in  those  days  to  the  Messiah,  and 
therefore  could  not  have  suggested  the  invention  of  this 
story. 


DOCTRINAL  BEARINGS  229 

17.  It  is  granted  by  a  majority  of  recent  critics  that 
the  myth — as  they  call  it — of  the  Virgin  Birth  could  not 
have  originated  on  Jewish  soil. 

18.  It  is  as  conclusively  shown  by  Harnack  and  oth- 
ers that  it  could  not  have  originated  on  Gentile  soil. 

19.  Pagan  myths  do  not  afford  any  proper  analogies 
to  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ,  or  the  doctrine  of  the  In- 
carnation. 

20.  The  perfect  sinlessness  of  Christ,  and  the  arche- 
typal character  of  His  humanity,  imply  a  miracle  in  His 
origin. 

21.  The  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  pre-exist- 
ent  Son  implies  a  miracle  in  Christ's  origin. 

22.  The  miracle  in  Christ's  origin  had  of  necessity  a 
physical  as  well  as  a  spiritual  side. 

23.  The  Virgin  Birth  answers  historically  to  the  con- 
ditions which  faith  postulates  for  the  origin  of  Christ. 

In  light  of  these  propositions,  I  cannot  acquiesce  in  the 
opinion  that  the  article  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  one  doc- 
trinally  indifferent,  or  that  can  be  legitimately  dropped 
from  the  public  creed  of  the  Church.  The  rejection  of 
this  article  would,  in  my  judgment,  be  a  mutilation  of 
Scripture,  a  contradiction  of  the  continuous  testimony 
of  the  Church  from  Apostolic  times,  a  weakening  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  and  a  practical  surrender 
of  the  Christian  position  into  the  hands  of  the  advocates 
of  a  non-miraculous,  purely  humanitarian  Christ — all 
on  insufficient  grounds. 


APPENDIX 

OPINIONS   OF  LIVING  SCHOLARS 


INTKODTTCTOKY  NOTE  BY  PKOF.  OEK 

The  papers  dealt  with  in  this  Appendix  were  pro- 
cured by  Dr.  W.  W.  White,  of  the  Bible  Teachers' 
Training  School,  New  York,  from  the  scholars  named, 
in  further  illustration  of  the  subject  of  the  Virgin  Birth. 
Some  of  the  papers  are  exceptionally  valuable,  and  the 
hope  may  be  expressed  that  means  will  be  taken  to  have 
them  published  in  extenso.  It  is  unfortunately  not  pos- 
sible to  do  more  in  this  Appendix  than  indicate  leading 
points  by  summaries  and  extracts. 

It  is  right  again  to  say  that  my  own  lectures  were 
written,  and  a  full  synopsis  of  them  was  published,  be- 
fore these  papers  were  seen  by  me.  The  papers  came 
to  hand  in  New  York  while  the  lectures  were  being  de- 
livered (some  later),  and  no  use  has  been  made  of  them 
in  any  way,  beyond  the  reading  of  certain  extracts,  on 
days  appointed  for  the  purpose.  I  thought  it  better  to 
take  the  full  responsibility  for  my  own  work,  and  to 
keep  the  contributions  of  other  writers  distinct.     Each 

author  is  therefore  responsible  only  for  his  own  produc- 

233 


234  APPENDIX 

tion,  and  not  in  the  least  for  any  views  I  have  expressed. 
Naturally  also  there  are  views  in  some  of  the  papers 
with  which  I  disagree.  But  I  am  deeply  grateful  for 
the  large  amount  of  common  ground,  and  for  the  cor- 
roboration of  my  positions  on  the  most  essential  points, 
which  the  discussion  by  so  many  minds  reveals. 

I  have  not,  except  in  one  case  (that  of  Dr.  Jacobs) 
ventured  on  any  criticism  or  counter-argument,  even 
where  my  views  do  not  fully  accord  with  those  of  the 
writer.  The  only  point  on  which  I  should  like  to  enter 
my  personal  dissent  is  in  respect  of  the  opinion  expressed 
by  certain  of  the  contributors  that  the  Virgin  Birth, 
even  if  true,  is  not  essential  to  Christianity.  I  have 
given  my  reasons  in  the  lectures  for  thinking  that  this 
is  not  a  tenable  position.  It  is  a  fair  question  to  raise, 
whether  or  not  the  evidence  justifies  belief  in  the  Virgin 
Birth.  But  it  seems  to  me  self-evident  that,  if  the  Vir- 
gin Birth  is  believed  to  be  true,  it  must  be  held  to  be  an 
essential  element  in  the  Incarnation,  as  it  actually  hap- 
pened. It  was  the  way  in  which  God  chose  to  bring 
about  the  Incarnation,  and  it  cannot  but  be  vitally  con- 
nected with  the  fact  of  which  it  was  the  instrumental 
cause.  The  historical  testimony  also  must  not  be  lost 
sight  of.     May  I  add  that  it  appears  to  me  that  the 


APPENDIX  235 

writers  in  question,  in  showing  how  deeply  the  idea  of 
the  Virgin  Birth  is  an  implication  of  just  views  of 
Christ's  Person,  holiness,  and  work,  do  much  to  modify 
their  own  contention  as  to  its  non-essential  character. 

In  the  list  of  authors  and  subjects  that  follows,  the 
order  is  that  in  which  the  papers  are  noticed  in  the  suc- 
ceeding pages.  I  ought,  perhaps,  to  mention  that,  while 
responsible  for  the  summarising  of  the  papers  given  to 
me,  I  am  not  responsible  for  their  transcription,  into 
which  occasional  errors  may  have  crept. 


AUTHORS  AND  SUBJECTS 

The  Rev.  Prof.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Oxford  University,  Oxford. 

"  The  Origin  and  Character  of  the  First  Two  Chapters  of 
St.  Luke." 

Sir  William  Ramsay,  D.C.L.,  D.D., 

University  of  Aberdeen,  Aberdeen,  Scotland. 
"  Luke's  Narrative  of  the  Birth  of  Christ." 

The  Rev.  George  H.  Box,  M.A., 
Vicar  of  Linton,  Ross,  Herefordshire,  England. 

"  The  Jewish-Christian  Origin  of  the  Gospel  Narratives  of 
the  Nativity." 

The  Rev.  Prof.  W.  E.  Addis,  M.A., 

Manchester  College,  Oxford. 

"Why  Do  I  Believe  in  the  Virgin  Birth?" 

The  Rev.  Canon  Richard  J.  Knowling,  D.D., 
The  College,  Durham,  England. 

"Why  I  Believe  the  Doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  to  be 

True." 
236 


APPENDIX  237 

The  Rev.  Principal  Alfred  E.  Garvie,  M.A., 
New  College,  London. 

"  The  Doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ  Our 
Lord:  A  Psychological,  Ethical,  and  Theological  Inves- 
tigation." 

The  Rev.  H.  Wheeler  Robinson,  M.A., 

Rawdon  College,  near  Leeds,  England. 

"  The  Old  Testament  in  Relation  to  the  Virgin  Birth." 

The  Rev.  Prof.  Theod.  Zahn,  D.D., 
Erlangen  University,  Erlangen,  Germany. 

"Why  I  Believe  the  Doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  to  be 

True." 

The  Rev.  Prof.  Reinhold  Seeberq,  D.D., 

Berlin  University,  Berlin,  Germany. 

"  Born  of  the  Virgin  Mary." 

The  Rev.  Prof.  H.  Bavinck,  D.D., 

The  Eree  University,  Amsterdam,  Holland. 

"  The  Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord." 

The  Rev.  Prof.  E.  Doumergue,  D.D., 

Montauban,  Erance. 

"  The  Miracle  of  the  Supernatural  Birth  of  the  Christ." 

The  Rev.  H.  C.  G.  Moule,  D.D., 
Bishop  of  Durham,  England. 
"Why  Do  I  Believe  in  the  Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord?" 


238  APPENDIX 

The  Kev.  W.  K.  Griffith-Thomas,  D.D., 

Principal  of  Wycliffe  Hall,  Oxford. 
"The  Virgin  Birth — Keasons  for  Belief." 

The  Bev.  Prof.  Henry  Cowan,  D.D., 
University  of  Aberdeen,  Aberdeen,  Scotland. 

"  Testimony  of  the  Sub- Apostolic  Church  and  Age  to  the 
Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord." 

Joseph  Jacobs,  Litt.D., 
Yonkers,  N.  Y. 

"  The  Virgin  Birth  from  the  Standpoint  of  Jewish  Science 
and  of  Folklore." 

Prof.  Ismar  J.  Peritz,  D.D., 

Syracuse  University,  Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

"  The  Hebrew-Christian  Attitude  Toward  the  Virgin  Birth." 

Pasteur  Hirsch, 
Paris,  France. 

"  The  Evolution  that  has  Led  from  the  Miraculous  Birth  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  the  Dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Con- 
ception." 

The  Kev.  Prof.  Gabriel  Oussani,  D.D., 

St.  Joseph's  Seminary,  Dunwoodie,  N.  Y. 

"  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Christ's  Virgin  Birth." 


SUMMARIES    OF   PAPEES 


The  Eev.  Peof.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Oxford 

Dr.  Sanday's  valuable  paper  discusses  the  origin  and 
character  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Luke. 
He  observes: 

In  regard  to  the  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Luke,  the  one 
conclusion  that  impresses  itself  upon  me  most  strongly  is 
that,  whatever  the  date  at  which  the  chapters  were  first  set 
down  in  writing — and  the  question  of  date  is  secondary 
rather  than  primary — in  any  case  the  contents  of  the  chap- 
ters are  the  most  archaic  things  in  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment. I  am  quite  prepared  to  assume  Harnack's  date  for 
the  composition  of  St.  Luke's  two  historical  writings,  viz., 
that  they  were  begun  and  finished  somewhere  in  the  fifteen 
years  between  78  and  93  a.d. — I  should  myself  be  inclined 
to  say,  more  probably  in  the  earlier  part  of  that  period  than 
the  later,  but  that  is  a  trifle.  I  shall  also  venture  to  assume 
what  has  been  consistently  maintained  by  all  the  leading 
English  scholars  who  have  dealt  with  the  subject  and  has 
now  received  the  powerful  and,  as  I  believe,  decisive  sup- 
port of  Professor  Harnack,  that  it  was  really  St.  Luke,  the 
companion  of  St.  Paul,  who  edited  and  gave  to  the  world 
the  Third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  as  they  now  stand. 

239 


240  APPENDIX 

He  examines  the  view  of  Harnack  that  "  the  sub- 
stance of  the  chapters  reached  St.  Luke  in  the  form  of 
oral  tradition,  and  was  first  committed  to  writing  by 
him/'  and  indicates  his  preference  for  the  alternative, 
"  that  he  received  them  already  in  writing  and  repro- 
duced this  document  as  he  reproduced  others  with  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  freedom." 

On  the  latter  point  he  says : 

Whatever  may  be  true  as  to  the  linguistic  clothing  of  the 
narrative,  I  am  prepared  to  maintain,  as  against  Harnack, 
that  in  any  case  the  chapters  are  not  a  free  composition  of 
St.  Luke's,  but  that  there  is  some  definite  authority  to  which 
he  closely  adhered  behind  them.  ...  The  whole  mental  atti- 
tude of  the  narrator  is  different  from  St.  Luke's  and  much 
more  primitive.  ...  I  think  we  may  say  that  the  real  author 
of  these  first  two  chapters  was  a  Jew,  a  Jew  by  birth,  and  a 
Jew  by  all  his  antecedents  and  interests. 

Illustration  and  argument  follow. 
The  deeply  interesting  conclusions  reached  are  thus 
stated : 

I  submit  that  these  varied  observations  taken  together  go 
far  to  justify  the  proposition  with  which  I  started,  that  the 
substance  of  these  two  chapters  not  only  differs  materially 
from  all  that  we  know  of  the  character  and  standpoint  of 
St.  Luke,  but  that  it  is  really  an  example  of  a  type  of  thought 
and  feeling  fundamentally  older  than  anything  else  in  the 
New  Testament.  Nowhere  else  is  the  novel  element  in  Chris- 
tianity so  little  disengaged  from  the  conditions  out  of  which 
it  arose.  We  should  say,  I  think,  looking  at  the  broad  phe- 
nomena of  these  chapters,  that  they  were  the  product  of  a 


APPENDIX  241 

circle  like  that  which  the  author  introduces  to  us,  the  circle 
of  Zacharias  and  Elisabeth,  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  of  Simeon 
and  Anna.  They  are  pious  folk,  brought  up  in  the  spirit 
of  the  older  dispensation,  but  looking  out  beyond  it — look- 
ing out  so  far  as  to  catch  sight  of  the  coming  "  redemption 
of  Israel,"  but  hardly  as  yet  the  salvation  of  the  world,  at 
least  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  empirically  realised.  The 
ancient  prophets  indeed  looked  forward  to  a  time  when  the 
knowledge  of  the  Lord  should  cover  the  earth  as  the  waters 
cover  the  sea,  but  it  was  all  to  be  through  the  medium  of 
Israel.  In  that  the  author  of  these  chapters  agreed  with 
them.  But  neither  they  nor  he  seem  to  have  anticipated 
such  a  throwing  open  of  the  gates  to  the  Gentiles  as  actually 
took  place,  while  the  children  of  the  kingdom  were  cast  out. 

Johannes  Weiss  has  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  narra- 
tives of  these  chapters  may  have  begun  to  circulate  among 
the  Jewish-Christian  communities  of  Judaea  "  in  the  sixties  " 
(Schriften  d.  N.  T.,  p.  383).  He  is  careful  to  add  that,  in 
doing  this,  he  does  not  attribute  to  them  a  higher  historical 
value  than  other  critics.  That  is  a  point  that  we  reserve  for 
the  present.  But  in  the  meantime  we  may  ask  whether  even 
so  early  a  date  as  the  beginning  of  the  sixties  satisfies  the 
conditions.  Perhaps  it  may.  Perhaps  it  is  possible  that  by 
this  time  people  had  begun  to  slip  back  into  the  old  mode 
of  speech  according  to  which  "  Herod,  king  of  Judaea  "  was 
understood  to  mean  Herod  the  Great.  But  it  would  be  even 
more  in  keeping  with  the  contents  of  the  chapters  if  they 
had  been  written  down  as  much  as  twenty  years  earlier.  It 
is  always  possible,  especially  in  a  secluded  district  or  a 
secluded  household,  to  be  behind  the  times.  But  I  very  much 
doubt  whether  there  is  anything  in  the  chapters  that  would 
not  be  even  more  vividly  natural  if  they  had  taken  their 
first  shape  before  the  great  missionary  successes  of  St.  Paul. 

That  hypothesis  I  must  leave  as  a  matter  of  speculation. 
.  .  .  But  the  ground  on  which  I  would  take  my  stand  is  that 


242  APPENDIX 

the  substance  of  the  chapters  is,  in  all  essential  character- 
istics, older  than  anything  else  in  the  whole  New  Testament. 

The  paper  closes  with  the  paragraphs : 

There  is  just  one  more  inference  that  I  think  we  may 
draw.  In  his  book  Harnack  has  called  attention  to  "the 
womanly  element"  in  the  Third  Gospel,  of  which  he  pro- 
ceeds to  enumerate  fourteen  examples.  (Luhas  der  Arzt,  p. 
109/f.  In  this  he  believes  himself  to  be  putting  forward 
something  new;  but  it  is  rather  curious  that  in  this  coun- 
try the  observation  goes  back  at  least  more  than  twenty 
years  (Farrar,  The  Messages  of  the  Boohs,  1884,  p.  81,  "  the 
Gospel  of  womanhood  ") ;  and  in  recent  years  it  has  become 
almost  a  commonplace. 

But,  if  this  is  true  of  the  Gospel  as  a  whole,  it  is  true 
pre-eminently  of  the  first  two  chapters.  Here  we  may  speak 
more  strongly,  and  say  that  the  whole  story  is  told  from  a 
woman's  point  of  view.  Observe  especially  the  notes  of  time 
in  i.  24,  26,  36,  56,  57;  also  the  description  w.  40-44,  and 
the  stress  that  is  laid  on  the  thoughts  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
ii.  9,  48,  50,  51.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  whole 
story  is  told  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  woman,  and  more 
particularly  of  Mary.  Impressions  of  this  kind  cannot  per- 
haps be  insisted  upon ;  but  for  myself  I  believe  that  the  last 
link  in  the  chain  by  which  the  substance  of  the  chapters 
reached  St.  Luke — and  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  the  first 
link  too — was  a  woman. 


APPENDIX  243 

II 

Sir  William  M.  Kamsay,  D.C.L.,  D.D.,  Aberdeen, 
Scotland 

Sir  Wm.  Kamsay,  like  Dr.  Sanday,  discusses  Luke's 
narrative. 

His  paper  opens  with  a  striking  declaration : 

That  in  the  man  Jesus  Christ  the  Divine  nature  was  in- 
carnate, is  an  essential  and  fundamental  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion :  "  the  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among 
us."  This  fundamental  principle  is  common  to  all  the  four 
Gospels  and  to  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole.  If  you  try- 
to  eliminate  it,  there  remains  practically  nothing:  that  is 
the  result  clearly  demonstrated  in  many  attempts  which 
have  been  made  to  cut  out  the  superhuman  and  Divine 
from  the  life  of  Jesus  as  set  forth  in  the  Gospels.  Some 
scholars  who  have  made  the  attempt  leave  a  slight  trifling 
remainder;  others  frankly  confess  that  there  is  nothing 
worth  notice  left;  others  again  substitute  a  fanciful 
romance  elaborated  out  of  their  own  inner  consciousness 
and  unsupported  by  ancient  authority  for  the  narrative  of 
the  Gospels.  That  Jesus  was  not  merely  human,  but  truly 
superhuman  and  Divine  is  the  Christian  teaching  and  faith 
and  belief,  and  to  deny  that  is  to  separate  one's  self  from 
Christianity. 

Prof.  Kamsay  thinks  "  it  is  different  when  we  ap- 
proach the  question  how  the  Divine  nature  came  to  be 
in  the  man,  and  how  the  superhuman  was  brought  into 
relation  with  the  human,"  and  contends  that  the  answer 
to  this  question  is  not  "  of  the  essence  of  Christianity." 


244  APPENDIX 

"  All  the  four  Gospels  and  Paul  agree  in  regarding  the 
exact  circumstances  and  manner  of  the  birth  of  Christ 
as  a  matter  only  of  historic  and  moral  interest,  not  an 
essential  and  necessary  part  of  the  faith."  * 

He  nevertheless  holds  that  Luke's  narrative  is  true, 
resting  ultimately  on  the  authority  of  Mary. 

They  [the  facts]  came  ultimately  to  Luke's  knowledge  in 
some  way  which  he  does  not  explain  precisely;  but  he  sug- 
gests in  his  own  fashion  that  Mary  was  his  ultimate  author- 
ity. He  knew  what  was  kept  hid  in  her  heart.  He  tells  us 
that  no  one  knew  the  facts  but  herself,  and  explains  that 
Elisabeth  told  Mary  her  inmost  heart,  but  not  that  Mary 
told  even  Elisabeth ;  yet  he  claims  that  he  was  able  to  impart 
information  with  certainty.  This  is  as  much  as  to  declare 
that  in  this  matter  the  knowledge  came  to  him  from  her 
either  directly  or  through  a  trustworthy  intermediary. 

"  Two  general  questions,"  he  says,  "  must  suggest 
themselves:  viz.,  as  to  the  authority  and  credibility  of 
the  story,  and  as  to  whether  Luke  used  a  written  or  an 
oral  authority." 

In  opposition  to  Harnack,  he  lays  stress  on  Luke's 
high  rank  as  an  historian: 

The  facts  mark  out  Luke  in  my  estimation  as  a  great  and 
judicious  historian,  and  his  narrative  as  entitled  to  high 
rank  in  respect  of  authoritativeness.  Reasons  for  this  opin- 
ion cannot  be  stated  here,  for  they  depend  on  a  survey  of 
his  history  as  a  whole.2    But,  except  for  those  who  invoke 

1 1  have  indicated  my  dissent  from  this  view,  p.  234. 
2  The  question  is  discussed  in  St.  Paul  the  Traveler,  Was  Christ 
Born  in  Bethlehem,  and  Pauline  and  other  Studies. 


APPENDIX  245 

superhuman  agency,  his  credibility  must  rest  on  his  sources 
of  information  and  his  critical  sense  in  distinguishing  be- 
tween good  and  inferior  sources.  In  Luke  i.  3-4,  he  claims 
to  have  excellent  sources  and  to  set  forth  what  is  certain. 
Those  who  hold,  like  Prof.  Harnack,  that  he  was  the  com- 
panion and  coadjutor  of  Paul,  must  admit  that  he  had 
access  to  first-rate  authorities,  if  he  chose  to  use  them.  .  .  . 
What  reason  is  there  to  think  either  on  the  one  hand  that 
Luke's  narrative  was  here  affected  by  popular  report  (which 
inevitably  carries  legend  with  it),  or  on  the  other  hand  that 
he  used  mainly  or  exclusively  a  good  authority  ?  The  only 
good  ultimate  authority  was  Mary  herself,  and,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  expression  is  skilfully  calculated  to  suggest  that  the 
writer  relied  on  her.  .  .  .  The  story  has  not  the  character  of 
legend.  It  is  precise,  clear,  definite,  whereas  legend  is  vague, 
fluid,  intangible.  While  the  words  are  Luke's,1  the  facts 
breathe  a  different  personality,  and  that  not  a  man's,  but  a 
woman's  and  mother's.  Only  the  child's  mother  noted  and 
remembered  his  growth  at  every  stage — ii.  40,  52.  Contrast 
the  warm  love  that  breathes  through  these  sayings  with  the 
kindly  affection  that  records  the  growth  of  John — i.  80. 

The  maternal  feeling  is  too  strong  to  have  been  created  by 
Luke  in  a  popular  report,  as  any  person  possessed  of  literary 
capacity  will  recognise  if  he  reads  the  story  with  this  object 
and  from  this  point  of  view.  The  song  of  Mary  is  not 
Luke's  composition  (as  Prof.  Harnack  argues);  it  is  the 
Biblical  rapture  of  a  mind  fed  on  the  Old  Testament  from 
infancy,  and  expressing  its  emotion  in  its  only  language 
of  exalted  emotion  (but  Luke  was  a  Hellene  and  a  convert 
from  paganism,  to  whom  Biblical  language  could  never  and 
did  never  become  the  inevitable  organ  of  expression  during 

*This  has  been  brought  out  clearly  by  Prof.  Harnack  in  his  Lukas 
der  Arzt,  with  much  of  whose  reasoning  everyone  must  agree 
though  it  is  too  verbal  to  carry  complete  conviction.  I  have  argued 
to  the  same  effect  on  grounds  of  fact,  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem,  ch.  iv. 


246  APPENDIX 

rapture).  Luke  translated  and  perhaps  gave  a  more  marked 
lyrical  form,  but  he  did  not  and  could  not  invent  the  hymns 
of  this  story.  They  are  the  expression  of  the  Jewish  mind ; 
he  was  a  Greek,  as  incapable  of  inventing  them  as  he  was  of 
inventing  the  character  of  Jesus.  .  .  .  We  must,  I  think, 
conclude  that  Luke's  account  rested  ultimately  on  the  witness 
of  the  best  authority,  viz.,  Mary  herself. 

This  raises  the  question  of  the  intermediary : 

The  character  of  the  narrative,  the  womanly  and  motherly 
feeling  that  breathes  through  it,  gives  the  assurance  that  it 
reached  Luke  not  after  passing  through  several  interme- 
diaries, but  through  the  report  of  some  person  who  had  been 
intimate  with  Mary  in  her  later  years,  "  who  knew  her  heart 
and  could  give  him  what  was  almost  as  good  as  her  own 
immediate  account."  Further,  "  one  may  venture  to  state  the 
impression  that  the  intermediary  is  more  likely  to  have  been 
a  woman  than  a  man.  There  is  a  womanly  spirit  in  the 
whole  narrative,  which  seems  inconsistent  with  the  trans- 
mission from  man  to  man,"  and  which  (one  may  add)  could 
not  have  been  preserved  in  the  narrative  of  Luke  even  after 
hearing  it  from  a  woman  unless  he  had  had  a  strong  natural 
sympathy  with  women ;  and  that  he  had  this  is  proved  clearly 
by  the  marked  prominence  which  he  gives  them  (alone  of 
all  writers  of  the  New  Testament)  in  history. 

So  much  stands  written  in  my  book,  Christ  Born  at  Beth- 
lehem, ch.  iv. 

Prof.  Kamsay  adopts  as  probable  Prof.  Sanday's  sug- 
gestion that  the  intermediary  was  Joanna,  the  wife  of 
Chuza,  Herod's  steward  (Luke  viii.  3)  ;  but  differs 
from  Dr.  Sanday  in  holding  that  Luke  did  not  use  a 
written  source. 


APPENDIX  247 

As  respects  credibility,  he  thinks  that  in  one  or  two 
points — as  in  the  reference  to  the  angel — there  may 
have  been  misapprehension  on  the  part  of  Luke,  or  of 
his  informant,  but  is  strong  in  his  affirmation  of  the 
substantial  truth  of  the  narrative : 

That  the  narrative,  though  perhaps  containing  certain  mis- 
apprehensions, is  substantially  a  true  account  resting  on 
Mary's  authority,  seems  to  me  beyond  question ;  and  I  should 
take  the  hymns  of  Mary  and  Zachariah  to  be  the  truest,  be- 
cause the  most  perfectly  Biblical  parts.  There  is  one  con- 
sideration which  must  lead  us  to  regard  the  misapprehen- 
sions as  unimportant.  The  compelling  power  of  everything 
connected  with  the  life  of  the  Saviour  was  the  greatest  force 
in  history.  It  was  this  force  that  produced  the  Gospels, 
driving  the  facts  into  the  minds  of  men  so  that  they  could 
not  but  speak  the  things  which  they  had  seen  and  heard,  and 
impressing  the  image  of  Jesus  on  their  imagination  so  deeply 
that  it  shines  with  almost  undiminished  brilliance  through 
the  Gospels,  although  they  were  written  so  many  years  after 
his  death  and  are  not  unaffected  by  the  time  and  circum- 
stances in  which  they  were  composed.  This  compelling  power 
is  the  reality  that  underlies  the  unfortunate  and  misleading 
name,  "verbal  inspiration,"  and  the  revolt  from  that  term 
should  not  blind  us  to  the  great  truth  of  which  it  is  a  mis- 
conception. This  compelling  power  operated  both  on  the 
intermediary  and  on  Luke  in  this  narrative. 

Prof.  Ramsay  differs  from  most  in  declaring :  "  I  am 
quite  unable  to  accept  the  view  that  Matthew  states 
Joseph's  view  as  Luke  states  Mary's.  There  seems  no 
real,  only  a  fancied  analogy."  1 

lI  venture  to  dissent,  see  pp.  83-4. 


248  APPENDIX 


III 


The  Rev.  George  Box,  M.A.,  Vicar  of  Linton, 
Herefordshire,  England 

It  is  impossible  to  do  justice  to  this  long  and  able 
paper  by  extracts,  but  certain  points  may  be  noted.  The 
paper  seeks  to  establish,  as  against  the  new  school  of 
comparative  mythology,  the  Jewish-Christian  origin 
of  the  narratives  of  both  Matthew  and  Luke. 

On  Matt.  i.  11  the  author  says: 

The  first  impression  produced  by  the  perusal  of  Matthew's 
narrative  is,  undoubtedly,  that  we  have  here  a  genuine  prod- 
uct of  the  Jewish  spirit.  In  spirit  as  well  as  in  letter  and 
substance  it  reflects  the  characteristic  features  of  Jewish 
habits  of  thought  and  expression.  How  strong  this  impres- 
sion is — and  how  well  founded — may  be  gathered  from  the 
remarks  of  so  unprejudiced  an  observer  as  Prof.  S.  Schech- 
ter.  "  The  impression,"  he  says,  "  conveyed  to  the  Eabbinic 
student  by  the  perusal  of  the  New  Testament  is  in  many 
parts  like  that  gained  by  reading  an  old  Eabbinic  homily. 
On  the  very  threshold  of  the  New  Testament  he  is  con- 
fronted by  a  genealogical  table,  a  feature  not  uncommon  in 
the  later  Rabbinical  versions  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
are  rather  fond  of  providing  Biblical  heroes  with  long  pedi- 
grees. 

Illustrations  follow. 

I  conclude,  then,  that  the  whole  narrative  embodied  in  the 
first  two  chapters  of  the  First  Gospel  is  thoroughly  Jewish 
in  form  and  general  conception,  and  that  while  Hellenistic 
colouring  is  unmistakably  present  in  the  story,  it  shows  de- 


APPENDIX  249 

cisive  indications  of  the  influence  of  Palestine,  and  is,  in 
fact,  addressed  to  a  circle  of  Hellenistic  Jews  who  were  un- 
der Palestinian  influence. 

The  integrity  of  the  narrative  is  upheld  against  those 
who  would  separate  the  genealogy  from  ch.  i.  18-ii.  23. 

Mr.  Box  finds  "  Midrashic  "  elements  in  Matthew's 
narration : 

What,  then,  is  the  character  and  historical  significance 
of  Matthew's  narration  (Matthew  i.  and  ii.)  ?  To  the  pres- 
ent writer  it  seems  to  exhibit  in  a  degree  that  can  hardly 
be  paralleled  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  the  character- 
istic features  of  Jewish  Midrash  or  Haggada.  ...  It  sets 
forth  certain  facts  and  beliefs  in  a  fanciful  and  imaginative 
setting  specially  calculated  to  appeal  to  Jews.  The  justi- 
fication for  this  procedure  lies  in  the  peculiar  character  and 
idiosyncrasy  of  the  readers  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  .  .  . 
The  task  that  confronts  the  critical  student  is  to  disentangle 
the  facts  and  beliefs — the  fundamental  ground  factors  on 
which  the  narration  is  built — from  their  decorative  embroid- 
ery.   What  then  are  these  fundamental  data  ? 

The  fundamental  fact  which  underlies  the  genealogy  of 
the  First  Gospel,  and  to  which  it  bears  witness,  is  the  Da- 
vidic  descent  of  the  family  of  Joseph  to  which  Jesus  be- 
longed. Its  artificial  form  merely  serves  to  disguise  a 
genuine  family  tradition,  which  may  have  been  embodied 
in  a  real  birth-register.  May  it  not  be  a  sort  of  Midrashic 
commentary,  in  genealogical  terms,  on  the  real  genealogy 
which  is  more  correctly  preserved  in  the  Third  Gospel? 

On  the  Virgin  Birth  and  the  citation  from  Isaiah : 

In  the  narrative  that  follows  (i.  18-25)  we  are  confronted 
by  similar  phenomena — the  underlying  fact  accompanied  by 


250  APPENDIX 

explanation.  The  fact  assumed  and  explicitly  stated  is  the 
Virgin  Birth,  which  is  supported  (in  the  compiler's  charac- 
teristic manner)  by  a  citation  from  Scripture,  viz.,  the  LXX. 
version  of  Isaiah  vii.  14. 

Now  it  is  generally  agreed  that  the  narrative  cannot  have 
been  suggested  by  the  citation.  It  is  certainly  remarkable 
that  Is.  vii.  14,  is  the  only  passage  in  the  LXX.  (with  one 
exception,  viz.,  Gen.  xxiv.  43)  where  the  Hebrew  word 
ialmdhy  which  means  a  young  woman  of  marriageable  age,  is 
rendered  irapBivos.  In  the  overwhelming  majority  of  in- 
stances irapOivos  (=  Virgin)  corresponds  to  its  proper  He- 
brew equivalent  oethula.  Moreover,  of  any  Messianic  appli- 
cation among  the  Jews  of  these  words  concerning  the  Vir- 
gin's Son  there  is  not  elsewhere,  we  are  assured  on  the  high 
authority  of  Prof.  Dalman,  even  a  "  trace  "  (The  Words  of 
Jesus,  E.  T.,  p.  270.  .  .  .  Badham's  attempt  (Academy, 
June  8,  1895)  to  show  that  the  belief  that  the  Messiah  was 
to  be  born  of  a  Virgin  was  current  among  Palestinian  and 
Alexandrian  Jews  rests  upon  highly  precarious  and  uncer- 
tain evidence — mostly  quotations  from  Martini  and  others 
from  Midrashic  texts  which  cannot  be  verified.  In  some 
cases  they  look  like  Christian  interpolations.  Consequently 
we  are  justified  in  the  conclusion  that  the  narrative  was  not 
suggested  by  the  citation,  but  the  citation  by  the  assumed 
fact  of  the  narrative. 


In  the  second  part  of  the  paper  the  Jewish-Christian 
origin  and  the  integrity  of  Luke  i.,  ii.,  are  considered 
and  defended.  Considerations  which  seem  to  the  author 
"  decisive  "  are  adduced  against  the  theory  of  interpola- 
tion of  vers.  34,  35  of  ch.  i. 

On  the  origin  of  the  narrative,  the  view  of  Lagarde, 
Resch,   and   Dalman  is   approved  that    (in  Dalman' s 


APPENDIX  251 

words)  these  chapters  "  have  throughout  a  colouring  dis- 
tinctly Hebrew,  not  Aramaic,  and  not  Greek."  The 
author  agrees  with  Dr.  Briggs  that  the  language  of  the 
(mainly  poetic)  sources  of  Luke's  narrative  was  prob- 
ably "  not  Aramaic,  but  Hebrew." 

On  the  important  point  of  the  relation  of  the  two  nar- 
ratives we  have  the  following: 

That  the  Nativity-narratives  in  the  First  and  Third  Gos- 
pels are  essentially  independent  has  already  been  indicated. 
The  fundamental  facts  on  which  they  agree  and  on  which 
they  revolve  may  very  well  have  been  derived  from  a  com- 
mon source,  viz.,  the  early  Jewish-Christian  community  of 
Palestine.  The  meagre  historical  content  of  Matthew's  nar- 
rative is  explained  by  the  apologetic  and  polemical  purpose 
that  dominates  it.  He  selects  and  uses  only  such  material  as 
is  immediately  useful  for  the  practical  purpose  he  has  in 
view,  and  in  view  of  this  it  is  surely  unsafe  to  argue  from 
his  silence  that  he  was  unacquainted  with  other  traditional 
incidents  which  were  treasured  in  the  Palestinian  circle. 
And  in  fact  there  is,  I  believe,  one  direct  point  of  contact 
between  the  two  narratives  which  suggests  that  Matthew  was 
not  unacquainted  with  the  Hebrew  hymns  and  poetical  pieces 
which  are  so  striking  a  feature  of  the  Lucan  account.  I 
refer  to  the  annunciation  by  an  angel  to  Joseph  set  forth 
in  Matt.  i.  20,  21  [passage  cited].  .  .  .  Matthew  is  here 
using  and  translating  from  a  poetical  piece  in  Hebrew,  de- 
rived doubtless  like  the  hymns  in  Luke  from  the  Pales- 
tinian community;  and  this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the 
explanation  of  the  name  Jesus,  which,  as  already  men- 
tioned, can  only  be  elucidated  by  a  play  upon  words  in 
Hebrew. 

The   theories  of  pagan   origin    (Soltau,    Schmiedel, 


252  APPENDIX 

Usener,  Gunkel)   are  acutely  discussed,  and  the  final 
result  is  reached : 

The  conclusion  is  forced  upon  us,  therefore,  that  if  the 
story  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  a  legend  it  must  have  grown  up 
within  the  Jewish-Christian  community  of  Palestine,  and 
must  represent  a  primitive  Christological  dogma  expressing 
the  idea  of  the  perfect  moral  and  spiritual  purity  of  Jesus 
as  Son  of  God.  The  Christian  consciousness  it  might  be 
urged,  working  on  such  a  passage  as  "  Thou  art  my  Son,  this 
day  have  I  begotten  thee"  (Ps.  ii.  7),  together  with  the 
Scriptural  promise  of  the  fulness  of  the  Spirit  that  should 
rest  upon  the  Messiah  (Is.  xi.  2)  may  have  been  led  to 
transfer  these  ideas  to  the  physical  beginnings  of  Jesus'  life. 
But  in  the  absence  of  any  analogous  developments  in  the 
Christian  consciousness  elsewhere  this  is  hard  to  believe. 
Why  did  the  Christological  process  assume  just  this  form, 
and  in  this  (a  priori  most  unlikely)  quarter?  The  impulse 
must  have  been  given  from  without.  But  unless  the  idea 
came  from  heathen  sources — which  to  the  present  writer 
seems  inconceivable  in  so  strictly  Jewish  a  circle — then  it 
must  have  grown  out  of  a  conviction,  cherished  within  a 
limited  Palestinian  circle  of  believers,  that  the  traditional 
belief  among  them  was  based  upon  facts  of  which  some  mem- 
bers of  this  community  had  been  the  original  depositories 
and  witnesses. 

When  subjected  to  the  criteria  properly  applicable  to  it, 
and  when  the  evidence  is  weighed  in  the  light  of  the  con- 
siderations advanced  above,  such  a  tradition,  it  seems  to 
the  present  writer,  has  high  claims  to  historical  credibility. 
The  alternative  explanations  only  serve  to  raise  more  dif- 
ficulties than  they  profess  to  solve. 

In  any  case  the  hypothesis  of  pagan  mythological  influ- 
ence is  to  be  ruled  out. 


APPENDIX  253 

IV 
The  Kev.  Prof.  W.  E.  Addis,  M.A.,  Oxford 

Well  known  as  a  radical  critic  of  the  Old  Testament, 
Prof.  Addis  is  nevertheless,  like  Dr.  Briggs,  a  convinced 
defender  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  In  his  paper,  "  Why 
do  I  believe  in  the  Virgin  Birth  ?  "  he  first  clears  the 
ground  by  setting  aside  reasons  which  fail  to  convince 
him.  Among  these  is  the  prophecy  in  Is.  vii.,  which, 
on  the  usual  grounds  that  the  sign  was  for  Isaiah's  con- 
temporaries, that  the  Hebrew  word  'almak  does  not  mean 
"  virgin  "  in  the  strict  sense,  etc.,  he  thinks  is  not  ap- 
plicable to  the  Virgin  Birth.  He  is  careful  to  distin- 
guish between  "  belief  in  the  Incarnation,  and  belief 
that  the  Incarnation  was  effected  in  a  human  body  and 
soul  of  a  pure  Virgin,"  and  says :  "  It  is  certain  that 
some  who  do  not  accept  the  story  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
do  accept  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation."  l 
He  believes  that  the  evidence  for  the  Virgin  Birth  is 
"  strong  enough  for  rational  acceptance,"  but  admits 
that  it  could  conceivably  be  much  stronger  than  it  is. 
He  rejects  any  aid  from  "  parthenogenesis." 

On  the  positive  side  his  argument  is  lucid  and  con- 
vincing.    The    main    portions    are    here    reproduced. 

*I  have  stated  in  the  lectures  that  I  have  had  difficulty  in  dis- 
covering them ;  they  are  certainly  few. 


254  APPENDIX 

Granting  that  "  a  previous  judgment  already  disposing 
us  to  believe  "  is  necessary,  he  says : 

Now,  I  think  this  prejudgment  reasonable,  and  I  should  be 
inclined  to  state  the  case  thus.  The  word  of  His  supposed 
parents,  however  high  their  repute,  would  never  convince 
me  that  an  ordinary  child  had  been  born  without  having 
any  man  for  his  father.  My  point  is  that  Christ  was  not 
an  ordinary  man.  I  confess  that  He  is  in  a  sense  absolutely 
unique  and  incommunicable  the  Son  of  God,  free  from  the 
least  taint  of  sin,  the  head  of  a  redeemed  and  renewed  hu- 
manity. That  being  so,  the  Virgin  Birth  is  no  longer  a 
difficulty  to  me;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  what  I  should  expect, 
and  any  other  hypothesis  would  present  to  my  mind  far 
more  serious  obstacles.  I  freely  admit  that  such  a  birth 
involves  a  miracle ;  only  the  whole  being  and  work  of  Christ 
is  to  me  a  miracle.  I  cannot  look  upon  Him  as  a  mere  man ; 
I  do  not  set  out  with  the  assumption  that  He,  through  whom 
all  things  were  made,  was  subject  either  in  His  birth  or 
resurrection  to  the  laws  of  the  material  universe.  Of  course 
a  priori  reasoning  of  this  kind  is  not  enough.  It  does  not 
follow  that  a  thing  actually  happened,  because  it  appears  to 
us  likely  and  becoming  that  it  should  happen.  Still  the 
grounds  just  mentioned  create  a  rational  presumption.  This 
presumption  is  clinched  by  the  evidence  of  the  Gospels  and 
of  the  early  Church,  and  is  thus  elevated  into  positive  faith. 

The  careful  study  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  creates  several 
definite  impressions  in  the  mind.  We  feel  that  no  man 
could  have  invented  the  story  of  Christ's  life  and  character. 
On  the  one  hand  the  picture  drawn  is  natural,  consistent, 
unique  in  its  originality  and  attractive  power;  on  the  other 
hand,  Christ  towers  high  above  the  heads  of  His  reporters, 
and  is  assuredly  no  creation  of  theirs.  Nor  are  we  left  in 
any  doubt  that  Christ  was  in  the  fullest  sense  man.    He  was 


APPENDIX  255 

hungry  and  weary;  He  was  moved  like  other  men  by  per- 
sonal love  and  grief  and  even  by  anger.  He  drained  the 
chalice  of  suffering,  and  it  was  said  of  Him  that  while  He 
saved  others,  He  could  not  save  Himself.  Still  in  one  re- 
spect He  stands  by  Himself.  Never  once  does  He  make  the 
faintest  approach  to  confession  of  sin  or  moral  imperfection. 
He  who  was  so  lowly  of  heart  reveals  no  consciousness  of 
sin,  and  though  He  poured  forth  His  thanks  to  God,  the 
Father  of  all,  He  expresses  no  gratitude  for  personal  sin 
pardoned  or  even  averted.  He  did  indeed  submit  to  a  bap- 
tism, principally  designed  for  the  remission  of  sins.  Never- 
theless the  revelation  imparted  to  Him  there  was  a  declara- 
tion, not  that  any  sin  of  His  had  been  washed  away,  but 
rather  He  was  the  beloved  Son  in  whom  the  Father  was 
well  pleased.  True,  He  acknowledged  that  God  alone  is 
good.  The  distinction,  however,  between  the  progressive 
goodness  of  a  Son  who  "  learned  obedience  "  and  the  divine 
goodness,  absolute  and  infinite  from  all  eternity,  does  not 
imply  the  least  taint  of  personal  fault  or  shortcoming  in 
the  Son  of  Man.  We  ask,  therefore,  how  it  was  that  our 
Lord  in  His  human  nature  was  free  from  the  tendencies  to 
evil  which  are  the  sad  inheritance  of  the  human  race.  To 
this,  belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth  offers  the  easiest  and  sim- 
plest answer:  the  Son  of  God  became  Man.  He  did  not 
"  shrink  from  the  Virgin  womb,"  yet  He  did  not  enter  the 
human  life  by  the  common  road.  Being  man  "  of  the  sub- 
stance of  His  mother  "  He  purified  the  flesh  which  He  took 
by  the  very  act  of  uniting  it  to  His  Divine  Person.  I  do 
not  question  the  fact  that  God  was  able  in  other  ways  to 
ensure  the  spotless  sanctity  of  Christ's  human  nature.  I 
contend,  however,  that  the  Virgin  Birth  provides,  so  far  as 
I  can  see,  the  most  natural  and  simple  way  of  doing  so; 
any  other  means  which  we  can  imagine  would,  I  think,  be 
more,  not  less,  miraculous.  From  miracle  of  some  kind  we 
cannot  escape,  so  long  as  we  hold  fast  to  the  faith  explicitly 


256  APPENDIX 

stated  by  St.  Paul  and  implied  in  the  New  Testament 
throughout  that  our  blessed  Lord  "knew  no  sin."  Hence 
Dr.  Martineau,  rejecting  the  miraculous  element  altogether, 
is  driven,  reverent  and  religious  as  he  is,  to  the  conclusion 
that  Christ  was  morally  defective,  a  supremely  good  man, 
but  still  not  perfectly  good.  (Seat  of  Authority,  p.  651, 
where  Dr.  Martineau  says  that  the  words  "without  sin" 
must  not  be  pressed  beyond  their  relative  significance.) 

We  may  follow  the  same  idea  along  another  line  of 
thought.  St.  Paul  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  the  "  Second 
Adam."  We  may  put  this  in  mor%  modern  language  by 
considering  Christ  as  the  beginning  of  a  redeemed  human- 
ity, as  one  who  makes  "  all  things  new."  Explain  it  as  we 
will,  the  fact  is  surely  patent  enough  that  we  are  "very 
far  gone  from  original  righteousness."  Even  the  most 
sceptical  historian  will  scarcely  refuse  to  admit  that  Christ 
introduced  a  new  era,  compared  with  which  all  other  changes 
grow  pale  and  insignificant,  in  the  history  of  the  human 
race.  It  was  then  in  every  way  most  fitting  that  He  should 
enter  the  world  in  a  new  manner,  breaking  the  long  chain 
of  birth  which  had  transmitted  sinful  inclination  from  age 
to  age,  and  inaugurating  a  new  order.  A  first  start  had 
to  be  made,  and  He  who  was  untouched  by  carnal  passion 
was  to  raise  us  from  "  the  death  of  sin  to  the  life  of  right- 
eousness." .  .  .  And  just  as  Christ's  sinlessness  is  a  miracle, 
so  but  in  a  much  higher  degree  is  His  Incarnation.  We  may, 
if  we  please,  dismiss  miracles  and  believe  that  God  is  incar- 
nate in  collective  humanity  and  reveals  Himself  in  the  prog- 
ress of  the  race.  But  we  are  playing  with  words  if  we  try 
to  hold  fast  the  faith  that  God  was  incarnate  in  the  man 
Christ  Jesus  and  made  the  perfect  revelation  of  His  char- 
acter and  will  in  Him,  unless  we  are  prepared  to  accept 
this  as  a  stupendous  miracle.  Apart  from  miracle,  we  can- 
not worship  Christ  as  the  "  very  image  of  God's  substance." 
A  man  more  perfect  than  He  may  come  in  the  slow  prog- 


APPENDIX  257 

ress  of  evolution.  We  have  still  to  "  look  for  another."  This, 
of  course,  is  tantamount  to  the  absolute  abandonment  of 
Christianity. 

Such  are  the  reasons  a  priori  which  prepare  the  way,  and 
may  well  incline  us  to  believe  that  our  Lord  was  born  of 
a  pure  Virgin.  This  being  so,  what  positive  evidence 
have  we  for  the  traditional  belief?  We  have  the  narrative 
by  St.  Luke  at  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel.  Recent  criti- 
cism has  enabled  me  to  appreciate  more  clearly  the  worth 
of  the  evidence  given  in  the  Third  Gospel.  Harnack,  fol- 
lowing in  the  line  of  Sir  John  Hawkins  and  Mr.  Hobart, 
has  produced  an  accumulation  of  evidence  which  makes  it 
difficult  to  doubt  that  our  Third  Gospel  really  was  written 
by  Luke,  the  beloved  physician  and  companion  of  St.  Paul. 
Now  Luke  spent  two  years  with  St.  Paul  at  Csesarea,  and 
had  ample  means  of  intercourse  with  Christians  of  Jewish 
race  who  had  listened  to  our  Lord  and  known  His  mother 
and  His  brethren.  We  turn  next  to  the  First  Gospel;  cer- 
tainly the  story  told  there  is  hard  to  reconcile  even  in  im- 
portant details  with  the  history  as  given  by  St.  Luke.  One 
thing,  however,  is  plain  as  noonday:  the  accounts  in  the 
Third  and  First  Gospels  are  independent  of  each  other,  so 
that  to  the  witness  of  St.  Luke  written  down  at  latest  about 
80  a.d.,  we  may  confidently  add  the  testimony  of  the  first 
Evangelist   derived  from  another  source. 

Reference  follows  to  the  witness  of  the  early  Church : 

"  Moreover  there  is  really  nothing  to  be  said  on  the  other 
side*  For  proof  of  this  I  must  refer  the  reader  to  Mr. 
Allen's  masterly  review  of  the  whole  question  in  the  Inter- 
preter for  1905."  .  .  .  "And  how  did  the  idea  of  Christ's 
Virgin  Birth  arise  ?  It  is  far  too  ancient  to  be  explained  by 
the  influence  of  Greek  ideas,  and  besides  the  stories  of  birth 
from  a  divine  and  human  parent  are  not  stories  of  Virgin 


258  APPENDIX 

Birth  at  all,  but  something  quite  different.  The  early  chap- 
ters of  Luke,  as  well  as  Matthew,  are  intensely  Hebraic  in 
thought  and  style.  But  of  Virgin  Birth,  as  of  any  notion 
that  virginity  was  more  honourable  than  marriage,  the  Old 
Testament  says  nothing.  Its  leaning  is  all  the  other  way. 
We  do  not  forget  the  words  in  the  text,  "  Behold  a  virgin 
shall  conceive,"  etc.  But  to  these  words  St.  Luke  does  not 
refer  at  all.  St.  Matthew  adduces  them  as  a  prediction  of 
a  fact  accepted  on  other  grounds. 


The  Kev.  Canon  E.  J.  Knowling,  D.D.,  Dukham, 
England 

Canon  Knowling' s  paper,  "  Why  I  Believe  the  Doc- 
trine of  the  Virgin  Birth  to  be  True,"  puts  clearly  the 
chief  points  with  which  readers  of  his  excellent  books 
and  articles  will  already  be  familiar.  The  following 
paragraphs  will  be  of  interest: 

The  testimony  of  St.  Irenseus  has  just  received  a  remark- 
able strengthening  by  the  recent  discovery  of  a  writing  of 
the  same  great  saint,  which  is  accepted  by  Dr.  Harnack  as 
coming  beyond  all  doubt  from  him,  a  writing  in  which  St. 
IrenaBUS  comes  before  us  in  the  character  of  a  catechist, 
seeking  to  build  up  his  friend,  Marcian,  in  the  knowledge 
of  the  facts  and  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Faith.  In  this  newly 
recovered  document  we  find  frequent  references  to  the  fact 
of  our  Lord's  Virgin  Birth,  and  inferences  and  lessons  are 


APPENDIX  259 

displayed  against  those  who  refuse  to  credit  it,  and  it  is 
stated,  as  Irenseus  so  forcibly  remarks  elsewhere,  that  the 
tradition  thus  affirmed  is  the  common  tradition,  not  of  any 
drawn  from  the  acceptance  of  this  fact;  keen  opposition  is 
one  church  only  but  of  the  whole  Christian  world.  .  .  . 

Outside  Christianity  there  were  only  two  sources  for  the 
derivation  of  the  story  of  the  Virgin  Birth — Jewish  or  pa- 
gan. But  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  whole  tendency 
of  Jewish  thought  was  wholly  different,  and  that  such  a 
fable  as  the  birth  of  the  Messiah  from  a  Virgin  could  have 
arisen  anywhere  more  easily  than  among  the  Jews.  On  the 
other  hand,  where  was  the  Christian  Church  to  be  found 
which  would  have  made  itself  responsible  for  this  remark- 
able being  ?  We  have  only  to  turn  to  the  language  of  the 
early  Christian  Apologist,  Aristides,  and  its  horror  of  the 
impurities  of  gods  and  goddesses,  to  be  assured  that  such  a 
story  would  not  have  commended  itself  for  a  moment  to  the 
early  Christian  commissioners,  unless  it  could  be  justified 
by  the  statements  of  the  Evangelists.  .  .  . 

The  present  writer  has  elsewhere  laid  stress  upon  the  fact 
that  St.  Luke  in  his  intercourse  with  James,  the  Lord's 
brother,  in  Jerusalem,  an  intercourse  attested  by  one  of  the 
"  We  "  sections  of  the  Acts  (xxi.  17)  would  have  had  means 
of  learning  the  details  of  the  Saviour's  birth.  And  he  is 
glad  to  see  that  the  same  view  is  not  only  emphasised  by  the 
Bishop  of  Ely  [Cambridge  Theological  Essays,  p.  406],  but 
is  rendered  possible  and  probable  by  Dr.  Harnack's  own  ad- 
mission, that  St.  Luke  had  intercourse  not  only  with  Mary, 
Silas,  Philip,  but  also  with  James,  the  Lord's  brother. 
(Lukas  der  Arzt,  p.  3.)  .  .  . 

In  this  connection  it  is  very  difficult  to  believe  that  what 
was  known  to  St.  Luke  was  unknown  to  St.  Paul,  a  point 
which  the  Bishop  of  Ely  has  recently  emphasised.  The  pres- 
ent writer  would  express  his  strong  conviction  that  far  too 
much  has  been  made  of  the  silence  of  St.  Paul  in  his  Epis- 


260  APPENDIX 

ties.  Without  going  into  the  subject  (upon  which  he  has 
expressed  himself  elsewhere)  he  will  simply  quote  the  words 
of  the  famous  Berlin  professor,  Dr.  Weiss,  that  a  new  crea- 
tive act  of  God,  a  cancelling  of  the  natural  continuity  is 
"an  almost  indispensable  consequence  of  St.  Paul's  theol- 
ogy" [Bibl.  Theologie  des  N.  T.,  pp.  289,  290],  in  face  of 
the  fact  that  the  second  Adam  is  the  pure  and  sinless  head 
of  humanity  in  contrast  to  the  first  Adam,  by  whom  trans- 
gression and  sinful  taint  has  been  inherited  by  every  mem- 
ber of  his  race. 


VI 


The  Rev.   Principal  A.  E.  Garvie,  D.D.,  New 
College,  London 

Principal  Garvie  entitles  his  paper :  "  The  Doctrine 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord :  a  Psycho- 
logical, Ethical,  and  Theological  Investigation."  He 
proposes  to  concentrate  attention  on  "  the  relation  of 
the  fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Person 
of  Christ,  His  religious  consciousness,  and  moral  char- 
acter." 

He  thus  defines  his  personal  attitude : 

While  himself  prepared  to  answer  affirmatively  the  ques- 
tion, Why  I  believe  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  to  be 
true?  as  regards  the  evidence  for  the  fact  he  holds  that  it 
offers  a  high  degree  of  probability,  but  not  of  absolute  cer- 
tainty; as  regards  the  significance  of  belief  in  the  fact,  he 
holds  that  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  essential  to  Christian 


APPENDIX  261 

faith  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  and  yet  that  it  is  accordant 
with  and  confirmatory  of  that  faith.  There  are  too  many 
exact  scholars  and  genuine  Christians  on  the  other  side  to 
warrant  a  confidence,  which  would  be  both  immodest  and 
uncharitable.  In  bearing  his  own  personal  testimony  he  will 
endeavour  to  show  that,  in  view  of  the  universal  sinfulness 
of  mankind,  the  unique  perfection  of  Jesus  is  explained  most 
reasonably  and  credibly  by  the  fact  that  His  birth  was  due, 
not  to  natural  generation,  but  to  a  supernatural  act  of  divine 
grace,  conditioned  by  human  faith. 

Dr.  Garvie  emphasises  first  "  the  Universal  Sinful- 
ness of  Mankind."     He  remarks: 

About  this  starting-point  it  might  seem  unnecessary  to 
say  anything,  were  it  hot  that  there  is  an  opinion  gaining 
currency  in  circles  that  are  not  thoroughly  informed  on  these 
matters  that  somehow  modern  science  has  compelled  Chris- 
tian theology  to  rid  itself  altogether  of  the  doctrines  of 
original  sin  and  total  depravity.  That  the  fresh  light  thrown 
on  the  beginnings  of  human  history  demands  some  modi- 
fication in  the  statement  of  the  doctrines  may  be  freely  con- 
ceded, but  what  must  be  firmly  denied  is  that  the  words  of 
the  prophet,  "  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray  "  (Is.  liii. 
6),  or  of  the  Apostle,  "  All  have  sinned,  and  fall  short  of  the 
glory  of  God  "  (Komans  iii.  23),  have  become  obsolete,  and 
been  superseded. 

He  shows  how  Mr.  F.  E.  Tennant,  "while  denying 
any  hereditary  taint  in  the  congenital  instincts  or  appe- 
tites of  the  child,  recognises  that  the  desires,  which  may 
afterwards  come  into  conflict  with  conscience  in  the 
child's  development  have  a  long  start  of  conscience,  and 
that  accordingly  the  moral  life  is  a  race  in  which  every 


262  APPENDIX 

child  starts  handicapped :  i  When  will  and  conscience 
enter,  it  is  into  a  land  already  occupied  by  a  powerful 
foe/  "  and  he 

welcomes  this  statement  as  a  proof  that  from  a  thoroughly 
modern  stand-point  the  fact  of  the  universal  sinfulness  of 
mankind  is  not  denied,  only  the  explanation  of  it  hitherto 
given  is  modified.  The  modification  appears  to  go  further 
than  the  data  allow.  The  moral  resemblance  of  parents  and 
children  seems  to  require  some  explanation  such  as  the  in- 
fluence of  the  early  environment  does  not  sufficiently  give. 
Even  if  we  admit  that  sin,  as  involving  personal  choice,  can- 
not be  transmitted ;  yet  the  possibilities — instincts  and  appe- 
tites— which  through  personal  choice  become  actualities  of 
sin  we  seem  to  be  justified  in  believing  are  in  some  measure 
determined  by  heredity.  To  put  the  conclusion  in  the  most 
guarded  terms  there  does  appear  to  be  universal  in  the  race, 
and  continued  from  generation  to  generation,  a  tendency 
which  is  the  potency  of  sin. 

With  this  is  now  contrasted  "  the  Unique  Perfection 
of  Jesus  " : 

The  universal  sinfulness  of  mankind  includes  religious  de- 
fect as  well  as  moral  depravity ;  for  moral  evil  is  properly  de- 
scribed as  sin  only  in  man's  relation  to  God,  as  distrust  of  and 
disobedience  to  God.  The  unique  perfection  of  Jesus,  which 
stands  out  in  solitary  splendour  on  that  dark  background, 
is  in  His  religious  consciousness  as  in  His  moral  character. 
As  regards  the  absolute  transcendence  of  the  moral  character 
of  Jesus  there  is  general  agreement.  [Lecky,  J.  S.  Mill,  and 
Schaff  are  quoted.]  .  .  .  There  is  one  thing  altogether  lack- 
ing in  the  moral  experience  of  Jesus  which  is  found  in  all 
the  saints — there  is  no  repentance  of  sin,  and  no  prayers  for 
pardon.    Only  if  He  was,  as  in  the  Gospels  He  is  represented 


APPENDIX  263 

as  being,  an  absolute  exception  to  the  race  m  having  no  sin 
to  repent  of  or  seek  pardon  for,  can  this  be  regarded  as  con- 
sistent with  the  absolute  moral  perfection.  Even  the  mem- 
ory of  sin  once  committed  would  be  sufficient  to  forbid  such 
an  attitude.  If  his  moral  life  had  been  a  race  in  which  he 
had  started  handicapped,  or  if  His  will  and  conscience  had 
entered  "  into  a  land  already  occupied  by  a  powerful  foe," 
to  repeat  Mr.  Tennant's  figures  of  speech,  would  such  a 
moral  conscience  have  been  possible?  Even  if  we  were  to 
suppose  that,  when  His  moral  life  began,  will  had  such 
energy,  and  conscience  such  illumination,  that  this  most 
powerful  foe  had  at  once  been  reduced  to  subjection,  we 
should  only  be  shifting  the  miracle  from  the  beginning  to  a 
later  stage  of  His  moral  development.  In  either  case  the 
moral  experience  of  Jesus  presents  to  us  a  problem  for  which 
some  solution  must  be  found. 

But  His  religious  consciousness  of  Divine  Sonship,  His 
filial  dependence  on,  communion  with,  submission  to  God 
as  His  Father  is  no  less  absolutely  unique  in  its  perfection. 
Never  before,  or  since,  has  God  been  so  known,  trusted, 
loved,  obeyed,  served.  [Harnack  is  quoted.]  .  .  .  The  vis- 
ion, the  confidence,  and  the  obedience  of  faith  were  seen  in 
Jesus  as  in  no  other. 

In  this  absolute  perfection  of  Jesus,  both  as  regards  moral 
character  and  religious  consciousness,  there  is  so  great  a  con- 
trast between  Him  and  humanity  in  its  universal  sinfulness, 
that  He  cannot  be  included  in  the  normal  process  of  evolu- 
tion. .  .  .  For  those  who  deny  this  absolute  perfection,  or 
who  doubt  that  it  necessarily  involves  as  absolute  a  tran- 
scendence of  the  ordinary  conditions  and  limitations  under 
which  human  personality  has  its  start,  course,  and  goal,  there 
may  be  here  no  problem  clamouring  for  a  solution ;  but  for 
those  who  accept  the  Christian  confession  of  Christ  as  Di- 
vine Saviour  and  Lord  there  is  a  question  urgently  demand- 
ing an  answer. 


264  APPENDIX 

This  leads  to  the  consideration  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
of  Jesus : 

The  writer  is  persuaded  that  the  fact  of  the  Virgin  Birth 
is  one  of  the  data  to  be  recognised  in  any  adequate  answer. 
It  is  sometimes  maintained  that  the  Gospels  offer  us  three 
alternative,  and  not  complementary,  answers  to  the  question. 
The  Johannine  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  of  the  Logos,  and 
the  Synoptic  testimony  to  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  on  Jesus 
at  His  baptism  are  held  to  be  rivals  to  and  substitutes  for 
the  explanation  of  the  higher  nature  of  Jesus  offered  in  the 
statement  in  Matthew  and  Luke  regarding  the  Virgin  Birth. 
It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  first  and  third  Evan- 
gelists seem  to  have  had  no  consciousness  that  they  were 
offering  two  contrary  explanations ;  and  without  laying  any 
undue  stress  on  the  suggestion,  the  writer  cannot  rid  him- 
self of  the  impression  that  the  very  emphatic  repetitions 
in  John  i.  13,  regarding  believers  as  the  children  of  God, 
"  which  were  born,  not  of  blood  (nfyiw— ,  bloods),  nor  of  the 
will  of  the  flesh  (o-apKos),  nor  of  the  will  of  man  (dvfyos)  but 
of  God,"  contain  a  covert  reference  to  the  mode  of  the  birth 
of  the  Logos,  which  is  in  the  next  verse  described  "  the  Word 
became  flesh."  Without  pressing  these  arguments,  we  may 
discover  on  closer  scrutiny  that  the  three  explanations  har- 
monise. As  has  been  already  urged,  Jesus  must  have  been 
an  exception  to  the  universal  sinfulness  of  the  race  from 
the  very  beginning  of  His  moral  development,  and  how  could 
the  descent  of  the  Spirit  in  His  thirtieth  year  explain  the 
sinless  childhood,  boyhood,  youth?  Is  it  not  probable  that 
the  <rdp£  which  the  Aoyos  became  was  prepared  for  His 
habitation  ?  The  humanity  had  to  be  so  constituted  that  the 
personal  unity  with  the  divinity  would  find  in  it  no  hin- 
drance. As  will  afterwards  be  shown,  human  faith  was  the 
condition  of  the  divine  grace  in  the  supernatural  act  by 
which  the  humanity  was  constituted,  and  this  seems  to  me 


APPENDIX  265 

a  more  reasonable  and  credible  explanation  than  the  assump- 
tion, which  must  otherwise  be  made,  that  from  the  moment 
of  union  the  humanity  was  so  overborne  by  the  divinity  as 
to  be  reduced  to  passivity,  so  that  none  of  the  congenital 
instincts  or  appetites  could  assert  themselves  before  the 
emergence  of  will  and  conscience.  In  the  faith  of  the  mother 
and  of  Joseph  mankind  offered  its  welcome,  rendered  its 
service  to  the  Incarnation  of  the  Word. 

The  additions  of  Roman  Catholicism  (immaculate 
conception  of  the  Virgin  herself,  etc.)  to  this  doctrine 
are  dismissed  as  without  warrant. 

The  author  proceeds : 

In  endeavouring  to  show  that  the  Virgin  Birth  does  offer 
us  some  explanation  of  the  unique,  absolute  perfection  of 
Jesus,  we  must  beware  of  too  confident  a  statement.  We 
are  not  in  a  position  to  affirm  that  it  was  only  in  this  way 
and  no  other  that  it  was  possible  for  the  personal  develop- 
ment of  Jesus  in  goodness  and  godliness  to  get  such  a  be- 
ginning, without  any  handicap  (to  repeat  the  figure  already 
used).  We  may,  if  we  please,  conjecture  that  even  if  Jesus 
had  been  born  naturally,  the  divine  grace  might  have  so 
guarded  the  infant  mind,  heart,  will,  that  no  factor  was 
allowed  to  enter  into  His  personal  development  which  could 
have  hindered  this  unique,  absolute  perfection.  But,  while 
in  the  evangelical  narratives  we  have  no  evidence  for  such 
an  assumption,  the  record  of  the  Virgin  Birth  lies  before 
us,  and  this  we  are  compelled  to  explain  as  a  fable  (an  en- 
terprise which  in  the  writer's  judgment  has  been  so  far 
unsuccessful),  or  to  accept  as  a  fact  to  which  either  we  can 
assign  no  significance  or  value,  and  which,  therefore,  be- 
comes a  burdensome  mystery,  or  which,  as  the  writer  prefers, 
we  must  endeavour  so  to  interpret  that  it  becomes  intel- 
ligible. 


266  APPENDIX 

Stress  is  laid  on  the  ethical  conditioning  of  the  In- 
carnation : 

The  features  of  this  supernatural  conception  which  are 
to  be  emphasised  are  on  the  one  hand  the  divine  grace  which 
is  spontaneously  initiative,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  human 
faith  which  is  responsively  receptive.  ...  In  the  Incarnation 
of  the  Son  of  God  faith  from  the  beginning  was  the  accom- 
paniment of  grace.  Our  Protestant  dread  of  the  superstition 
of  Mariolatry  should  not  be  allowed  to  prevent  our  frank 
and  full  recognition  of  the  blessedness  and  honour  of  the 
mother  of  Jesus  in  the  trust  and  the  task  committed  to  her. 
She  was  not  "  disobedient  to  the  heavenly  vision,"  nor  dis- 
trustful of  the  heavenly  race.  "  Behold  the  handmaid  of 
the  Lord;  be  it  unto  me  according  to  thy  Word  "  (Luke  i.  38). 
We  may  venture  to  believe  that  this  human  faith  was  the 
necessary  condition  of  the  Divine  grace  in  the  supernatural 
act  of  the  conception.  .  .  . 

The  faith  of  Joseph,  also  blessed  and  honoured  of  God  as 
the  chosen  guardian  of  the  mother  and  the  child,  must  not 
be  overlooked.  He,  too,  had  his  trust  and  task  from  God. 
He  humbly  and  obediently  accepted  the  divine  communica- 
tion in  regard  to  his  betrothed.  In  their  companidnship  dur- 
ing the  trying  days  until  the  birth  of  the  child  doubtless 
his  faith  confirmed  and  sustained  hers.  If  the  paternal 
function  physically  was  not  his,  it  was  his  morally  and  relig- 
iously. He  might  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  parents  of  Jesus, 
not  according  to  the  flesh,  but  according  to  the  Spirit. 

The  reasonableness  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  thus  shown : 

Granted  the  necessity  that  His  personal  life  should  not 
be  a  race  in  which  He  started  handicapped,  and  that  His 
conscience  and  will  should  not  enter  a  land  already  occu- 
pied by  a  powerful  foe,  the  postulate  is  fulfilled  it  may  be 
maintained  confidently,  in  the  Virgin  Birth  in  such  a  way 


APPENDIX  267 

as  least  disturbs  the  laws  and  order  of  human  development. 
A  heredity  and  an  environment  are  provided,  adequate  to, 
and  appropriate  for,  the  absolutely  unique  resuk,  in  which 
the  supernatural  does  not  suppress  violently,  or  expel  en- 
tirely the  natural,  but  completely  pervades  and  transforms 
it.  The  divine  initiative  in  the  supernatural  conception 
starts  a  process  which  runs  a  normal  course,  and  yet  attains 
the  abnormal  result.  There  is  not  a  prodigality,  but  an 
economy  of  the  miraculous. 

The  essay  closes  by  showing  that  the  value  of  Christ's 
life  as  a  pattern  is  not  affected  by  His  supernatural 
birth. 


VII 


The  Eev.  H.  Wheeler  Robinson,  M.A.,  Rawdon, 
by  Leeds,  England 

The  aim  of  Mr.  Robinson's  very  full  paper  is  "  to 
approach  the  Nativity  narratives  from  the  standpoint  of 
men  and  women  whose  thought  was  dominated  by  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures."  In  the  difficulty  of  sum- 
marising a  paper  which  involves  so  mueh  detail,  it  may 
be  simplest  to  give  the  author's  conclusions  in  his  own 
words.    He  says : 

The  points  which  have  been  ascertained  may  now  be  col- 
lected : 

1.  The  mystery  of  the  physiological  process  of  conception 


268  APPENDIX 

and  birth,  regarded  as  a  point  of  entrance  for  divine  activ- 
ity. The  continuity  of  life,  under  divine  control,  from  the 
moment  of  conception  onwards. 

2.  The  idea  of  Spirit  as  acting  on  and  through  persons  to 
personal  ends.  The  close  interrelation  of  "  soul "  and  "  body  " 
in  the  Hebrew  idea  of  personality.  The  absence  of  any  idea 
that  Virgin  Birth  was  necessary  to  eliminate  the  taint  of 
sin  from  the  personality  of  Jesus. 

3.  The  absence  of  any  O.  T.  prophecy  of  Virgin  Birth,  yet 
the  consonance  of  such  birth  with  Hebrew  ideas  of  virginity. 

The  author  adds : 

There  is  no  need  to  appeal  to  direct  Gentile  influence  on 
the  formulation  of  the  belief.  Given  these  conditions  of 
thought,  and  the  unique  personality  of  Jesus,  we  may  pro- 
ceed to  explain  away  the  narratives  as  a  natural  inference 
— if  we  want  to  explain  them  away.  But  this  raises  the 
whole  attitude  to  miracle.  .  .  .  On  historical  grounds,  we 
are  driven  to  admit  the  truth  of  the  Eesurrection  of  Jesus 
in  a  unique  way.  Why  may  we  not,  then,  accept  a  unique 
beginning  as  well  as  a  unique  ending  to  this  unique  life? 

The  paper  concludes: 

In  accepting  for  himself  the  Virgin  Birth  in  this  sense, 
and  on  the  lines  here  briefly  outlined,  the  writer  feels  bound 
to  state  that  it  ought  to  be  possible  for  Christians  to  find 
common  ground,  whatever  their  differences  on  the  physio- 
logical question.  If  God  is  recognised  to  be  in  Christ,  all 
theories  of  the  manner  of  His  presence  are  secondary  to  the 
fact  itself.  ...  It  is  possible  that  there  never  will  be  agree- 
ment amongst  believers  on  such  a  subject;  and  there  is  no 
New  Testament  warrant  for  the  exclusion  of  any  who  can- 
not accept  the  Nativity  narratives  in  the  sense  intended  by 
their  writers,  which  it  has  been  the  chief  aim  of  this  paper 
to  elucidate. 


APPENDIX  269 


VIII 


The  Rev.  Prof.   Theod.  Zahn,  D.D.,  Erlangen, 
Germany 

This  distinguished  scholar  contributes  a  paper  which 
is  in  part  a  confession  of  personal  faith,  and  in  part  a 
discussion  of  points  in  the  testimony  of  the  Gospels — 
especially  of  the  Gospel  of  John. 

To  the  question,  "  Why  do  I  believe  the  doctrine  of 
the  Virgin  Birth  to  be  true  ?  "  he  replies : 

My  answer  to  this  question  can  be  given  in  very  few 
words :  I  believe  that  that  doctrine  is  true,  or,  in  other  words, 
I  believe  that  the  miraculous  event  which  is  set  forth  in  that 
doctrine  did  actually  happen,  because  I  believe  in  Jesus 
Christ,  who  did  redeem  me  and  will  redeem  me  from  the 
guilt  of  sin  and  from  the  power  of  Death.  These  words 
contain  everything  that  I  can  give  in  answer;  but  they  do 
not  say  everything  that  is  to  be  said  to-day.  The  same  dis- 
turbance of  the  Christian  minds  of  all  countries  and  of  all 
denominations,  which  has  been  the  occasion  to  ask  a  number 
of  theologians,  of  English,  French,  and  German  speech,  about 
their  personal  attitude  towards  that  doctrine,  renders  some 
explanation  necessary  of  my  above-given  confession  of  faith. 

Later  he  says,  after  contrasting  the  primitive  with 
the  "  modern  "  faith :  "  Therefore  my  faith  in  Jesus  as 
my  Redeemer  stands  and  falls  with  the  grateful  recog- 
nition of  the  facts  which  form  the  contents  of  the 
Gospel." 


270  APPENDIX 

Do  these  facts  include  the  Virgin  Birth  ?  He  grants, 
"  No  word  of  Jesus  has  come  down  to  us  which  refers 
to  it  distinctly.  Nowhere  did  Paul  unequivocally  de- 
clare his  belief  in  it."  Yet  he  contends :  "  The  Virgin 
Birth  of  Christ  was  an  article  of  faith  of  the  Church 
as  early  as  the  first  century,  and  we  may  assume  that  it 
will  be  so  as  long  as  there  is  a  Church,  for  that  article 
is  a  necessary  element  of  the  faith  on  which  the  Church 
lives." 

Dealing  with  the  testimony  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
Zahn  takes  up  a  number  of  points  to  show  that  John 
was  not  unacquainted  with,  or  indifferent  to,  the  earthly 
origin  of  Jesus.  His  characteristic  positions  are  seen 
in  the  following : 

We  can  no  more  imagine  that  John  did  not  know  the  tra- 
dition of  the  Virgin  Birth  than  that  he  did  not  form  any 
opinion  about  that  report.  Not  only  the  unanimous  tradi- 
tion of  the  ancient  Church,  but  likewise  the  comparative 
study  of  the  Gospels  forces  us  to  recognise  that  the  Fourth 
Gospel  was  written  later  than  the  other  three,  and  that  the 
author  expected  his  first  readers  to  have  a  knowledge  of  the 
fundamental  outlines  of  the  Synoptical  tradition.  Since, 
further,  the  accounts  in  Matthew  i.  and  Luke  i.  manifestly 
originated  independently  of  each  other,  it  follows  that  the 
essential  features  in  which  both  accounts  agree  was  a  mat- 
ter of  general  knowledge  at  the  time  when  these  Gospels  were 
composed,  and  it  results  from  Luke  i.  2/f.,  that  this  occurred 
at  the  time  and  under  the  eyes  of  the  "  eye  witnesses  from 
the  beginning."  Besides,  Matthew,  ch.  i.,  already  takes  into 
consideration  the  Jewish  slurs  cast  upon  the  respectability 
of  the  birth  of  Jesus ;  the  latter,  of  course,  are  nothing  but 


APPENDIX  271 

a  malicious  caricature  of  the  Christian  tradition  of  the 
Virgin  Birth.  Therefore,  even  the  Jews  of  Palestine  knew 
that  tradition  as  a  common  belief  of  the  Christians  among 
them.  Considering*  all  this,  it  is  incredible,  from  a  historical 
point  of  view,  that  that  tradition  did  not  arise  until  after 
the  years  60  to  70,  and  it  is  as  incredible  that  it  was  un- 
known to  the  Fourth  Evangelist  and  his  first  readers.  If 
Cerinthus  denied  it,  John  knew  it,  and  we  may  suppose  that 
he  confessed  his  faith  in  it.    This  can  even  be  proved. 

According  to  the  usual  text  of  John  i.  13,  this  passage 
treats  of  the  men  to  whom  Jesus  has  imparted  the  right  and 
the  capacity  to  become  children  of  God.  That  applies  to  all 
who  in  the  time  of  the  Evangelist  believed  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  (i.  12).  Of  these,  he  says  that  they  are  begotten  and 
born,  not  of  double  blood,  that  is,  by  the  mixture  of  the 
blood  of  two  people,  not  of  a  will  of  the  flesh,  not  of  the 
will  of  a  man,  but  of  God.  Even  if  there  did  not  follow  the 
statement  in  i.  14,  that  the  Logos  became  flesh,  it  could 
not  be  misunderstood  that  verse  13  says  of  the  birth  of  the 
children  of  God  exactly  what  is  said  by  the  tradition  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus.  The  begetting  and  the  birth  of 
the  Only  Begotten  Son  of  God  is  directly  used  as  the  model 
for  representing  the  begetting  and  birth  of  children  of  God, 
who  have  become  so  through  Him.  For,  why  else  should 
John  nor  have  been  satisfied  to  deny  that  the  children  of  God 
are  products  of  a  will  of  the  flesh  like  the  children  of  man  ? 
Why  does  he  assert  beyond  that  negatively  that  they  were 
not  called  into  being  by  the  mixture  of  the  blood  of  a  man 
and  a  woman  and  not  by  the  will  of  a  man  ?  Just  this  triple 
denial  seems  unnatural,  even  if  John  wanted  to  compare 
the  birth  of  the  children  of  God  with  the  Birth  of  the  Only 
Son  of  God.  Why  is  he  not  satisfied  with  the  simple  oppo- 
sition of  flesh  and  spirit  as  Jesus  uses  it  according  to  John 
iii.  6,  where  he  speaks  expressly  of  the  Second  Birth  in 
opposition  to  the  natural  birth.    To  that  we  must  add  some 


272  APPENDIX 

grave  stylistic  objections  to  the  traditional  text  of  i.  13.  Its 
connection  with  i.  12  is  very  hard;  for,  not  the  definition 
of  the  faith  in  the  name  of  Christ,  which  forms  the  close  of 
verse  12,  but  the  definition  of  the  quality  of  being  a  child 
of  God  is  what  is  determined  by  verse  13.  Just  as  un- 
natural seems  the  connection  of  the  clause  about  the  incar- 
nation of  the  Logos  in  verse  14  with  verse  13  by  an  "  and." 
Wherever  in  the  Prologue  John  passes  to  a  new  sphere  of 
thought,  he  uses  the  asyndetic  form  (verses  3,  6,  9),  and 
by  the  word  "  and "  he  adds  only  such  sentences  as  belong 
to  the  same  sphere  as  the  preceding  idea.  Compare  the 
sentences  in  verses  1,  4,  10,  11-14.  All  these  objections  dis- 
appear, if  we  recognise  as  the  original  text  the  reading 
which  in  any  case  is  exceedingly  ancient  and  which  says, 
"  He  was  not  born  of  double  blood  and  not  of  a  will  of  the 
flesh,  nor  was  He  born  of  a  man's  will,  but  of  God,  and  the 
Logos  became  flesh  and  we  saw  His  glory,"  etc.  This  is 
not  the  place  to  show  in  detail  that  these  clauses  without 
any  connection  in  relative  form  with  verse  12  could  be  read 
in  all  Church  copies  of  the  Occident  from  Irenseus  to  the 
last  years  of  the  fourth  century,  and  that  the  reading  even 
left  its  traces  in  the  far-off  Orient.  Tertullian  was  probably 
right  in  accusing  the  Valentinians  of  being  the  first  to 
change  the  singular  in  verse  13  to  the  plural.  That  this 
reading  passed  into  Church  copies  of  the  Greek  Orient  is 
readily  understood.  Since  in  verse  14  the  subject  is  not 
left  indeterminate,  as  in  verses  10  and  11,  but  is  given  by  the 
name  of  the  Logos,  it  seemed  as  if  the  Logos  and  His  entry 
into  human  life  was  mentioned  here  first,  and  not  in  verse  13. 
But  just  in  verse  14  the  use  of  the  name  of  the  Logos  was 
necessary,  because  John  wanted  to  remind  of  verse  1  and 
wanted  to  say  that  He  who  at  the  beginning  was  God  with 
God,  had  become,  by  the  begetting  and  birth  described  in 
verse  13,  a  man  of  flesh  and  blood  and  at  the  same  time 
the  One  Begotten  Son  of  God.    It  is  very  easily  understood 


APPENDIX  273 

that  some  orthodox  Greek  connected  verse  13  with  verse  12 
by  an  interpolated  relative  pronoun;  that  way,  the  interpre- 
tation of  that  clause  as  referring  to  a  special  class  of  select 
spiritual  men,  which  was  popular  among  the  Gnostics,  was 
rendered  impossible,  and  its  interpretation  was  insured  as 
referring  to  all  faithful  Christians. 

John  has  therefore  not  only  indirectly  shown  his  famil- 
iarity with  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  and  omitted  any 
opposition  to  it,  but  he  has  confessed  it  with  full  sounding 
testimony.  If  the  Fourth  Evangelist  is  the  disciple  who,  in 
compliance  with  the  last  will  of  the  dying  Jesus,  took  Mary 
into  his  house  (John  viii.  26)  we  cannot  imagine  any  stronger 
testimony  than  this;  for,  what  men  can  know  of  the  birth 
of  Jesus,  that  was  known  to  the  mother  who  has  borne  our 
Lord. 


IX 


The  Kev.  Prof.  R.  Seeberg,  D.D.,  Berlin, 
Germany 

Prof.  Seeberg's  discussion  of  the  article,  "  Born  of 
the  Virgin  Mary,"  turns  in  part  on  his  peculiar 
Christology,  which  he  explains  to  mean  that  the  Divine 
Spirit  as  the  Personal  Redeeming  Will  of  God  (dog- 
matically the  "  Logos  ")  united  Himself  with  the  man 
Jesus  so  as  to  become  One  with  Him,  penetrating  Him 
by  His  energy,  and  forming  Him  to  be  His  organ.  His 
paper,  however,  is  a  very  thorough  handling  of  the  cru- 


274  APPENDIX 

cial  points  in  the  controversy,  with  the  result  of  show- 
ing that  the  derivation  of  the  Virgin  Birth  from  pagan 
myths  or  from  O.  T.  prophecy  is  inadmissible,  and  that 
nothing  militates  against  the  acceptance  of  the  historical 
fact.    He  sums  up  in  the  following  propositions : 

The  result  of  the  historical  examination  is  therefore  briefly 
this: 

1.  The  miraculous  origin  of  Jesus,  reported  by  Matthew 
and  Luke,  has  the  meaning  that  God  created  Jesus  as  He 
created  Adam,  in  order  that  He  might  be  His  organ. 

2.  That  miraculous  origin  of  Jesus  is  to  be  recognised  as 
an  historical  fact,  because  well-informed  authors  report  it 
without  any  tendency  or  object  in  view,  and  because  it  is 
testified  to  by  the  unprejudiced  belief  of  the  entire  ancient 
Church,  as  well  as  by  the  Jewish  slanders  of  Mary. 

3.  On  the  other  side,  the  denial  of  the  Virgin  Birth  on  the 
part  of  the  radical  Jewish-Christians  is  caused  by  a  tendency. 

4.  The  efforts  to  show  the  story  to  have  been  a  myth, 
either  by  falling  back  on  pagan  myths  or  on  Jewish  concep- 
tions or  views,  are  historically  untenable. 

5.  The  silence  of  the  old  source  of  the  Gospels,  of  the 
primitive  Christian  Baptismal  Confession,  of  John,  of  Paul, 
and  of  the  other  authors  of  the  New  Testament,  is  unin- 
telligible as  long  as  we  face  it  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  modern  popular  Dogmatics ;  but  it  is  readily  understood, 
if  we  take  the  question  up  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
original  Christology. 

He  asks  in  closing  whether  the  article  has  a  religious 
significance  which  warrants  us  retaining  it  in  our  Creed, 
and  answers  the  question  in  the  affirmative.  "  We  have," 
he  says,  "  to  pay  regard  to  the  '  weak  in  faith,'  but  we 


APPENDIX  275 

must  not  make  them  masters  of  the  faith  of  the  Church." 
He  shows  that  a  profound  doctrinal  interest  is  involved 
in  the  Article,  when  taken  in  connection  with  a  just 
view  of  Christ. 

If  we  now  look  at  the  resistance  we  men  make  to  God, 
and  see  how  our  whole  nature,  burdened  and  weakened  by 
the  long  inheritance  of  sinful  tendencies  and  habits,  op- 
poses the  will  and  the  truth  of  God,  we  can  hardly  under- 
stand how  a  man  who  has  that  tendency  towards  evil  in  him 
from  his  birth  could  become  the  organ  of  God  in  the  abso- 
lute way  that  Jesus  did.  The  more  closely  we  become  ac- 
quainted with  the  man  Jesus,  with  the  absolute  truth  of 
His  words,  with  the  perfect  union  of  His  will  with  the 
divine  will  within  Him,  with  the  freshness  and  originality 
of  His  powerful  human  individuality,  the  more  loudly  does 
the  question  arise  whether  this  man  really  could  have  origi- 
nated like  all  other  men,  open  from  the  first  to  evil,  and 
inclined  towards  it.  .  .  .  Here  is  the  point  where  the  history 
of  the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus  comes  in.  It  solves  for 
us  a  riddle  which  is  much  greater  than  the  riddle  which  it 
itself  presents  to  us. 


The   Eev.    Prof.    H.    Bavinck,    D.D.,    Amsterdam, 
Holland 

This  eminent  Dutch  theologian  devotes  considerable 
space  to  the  right  method  of  investigating  the  subject  of 
the  Virgin  Birth.     He  contrasts  the  analytical  method, 


276  APPENDIX 

common  in  scientific  and  historical  investigation,  which 
supposes  that  the  inquirer  does  not  know  anything  of 
the  subject  he  inquires  into,  and  proceeds  by  unbiassed 
consideration  of  the  phenomena  presented  to  it ;  and  the 
synthetic,  shown  to  be  needful  also  in  science,  which 
starts  from  ideas  already  given. 

In  every  science  both  these  methods  are  employed, 
and  it  is  only  a  question  of  degree  as  to  how  far  one  or 
the  other  method  has  predominance. 

Prof.  Bavinck  shows  that  the  one-sided  application 
of  the  analytical  method  to  the  Gospels  can  only  lead 
to  destructive  and  negative  results,  and  illustrates  from 
modern  criticism.  "  The  Virgin  Birth  especially  is 
from  the  standpoint  of  analytical  investigation  a  stum- 
bling-block." The  analytic  method  in  theology,  as  in 
every  science,  needs  to  be  completed  by  the  synthetic. 

In  psychology,  the  psychical  phenomena  lead  up  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  soul  itself ;  but  in  the  same  way  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  soul  helps  us  to  understand  and  interpret  the 
psychical  phenomena.  A  man's  character  may  be  explained 
by  his  words  and  deeds,  but  the  knowledge  of  the  person 
himself  gives  us  more  insight  into  his  feelings  and  acts. 
.  .  .  Life,  conscience,  will,  religious  and  moral  feelings, 
etc.,  are  only  understood  because  we  bring  with  us  an  idea 
about  all  these  things,  borrrowed  from  our  own  living  per- 
sonality. .  .  .  The  words  and  the  acts  of  Christ  certainly 
shed  light  upon  His  Person;  but  the  Person  of  Christ  on 
the  other  hand  makes  clear  His  speech  and  deeds.  The 
miracles  of  Jesus  are  seen  from  a  quite  different  point  of 
view,  if  I  acknowledge  Him  to  be  the  holy  Son  of  God, 


APPENDIX  277 

from  that  in  which  they  would  if  I  honour  Him  only  as 
a  religious  genius.  And  so  it  is  with  the  whole  substance 
of  Christian  belief. 

Accordingly,  Prof.  Bavinck  holds, 

in  all  these  and  other  theological  investigations,  the  prin- 
cipal and  real  question  is :  What  think  ye  of  Christ  ?  Con- 
sciously or  unconsciously,  this  question  is  always  put  in  the 
foreground,  and  all  investigations  on  either  side  are  ruled 
by  the  answer  to  this  question.  .  .  .  By  this  alone  theology 
preserves  its  religious  character.  The  answer  does  not  de- 
pend on  critical  and  historical  investigation,  but  on  the 
regeneration  of  the  heart.  No  man  speaking  by  the  Spirit 
of  God  calleth  Jesus  accursed,  and  no  man  can  say  that 
Jesus  is  the  Lord  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

In  dealing  with  Christ's  image  in  the  New  Testament, 
Prof.  Bavinck  gives  special  attention  to  one  point — the 
identity  of  the  self -consciousness  that  we  find  in  Christ 
everywhere. 

It  is  always  the  same  Person,  the  same  I,  that  encounters 
us  in  the  Christ  of  the  New  Testament.  This  self -conscious- 
ness is  quite  human,  more  human  than  in  any  one  of  us, 
but  humanity  is  not  the  essence,  but  the  form  of  its  exist- 
ence. 

Later  in  the  paper,  Prof.  Bavinck  connects  with  this 

an  argument  with  the  Virgin  Birth.     Because  Christ 

was  an  eternal  divine  Person, 

He  could  not  be  quite  passive  in  the  moment  of  concep- 
tion as  we  are:  He  was  sent  by  His  Father  into  the  world, 
but  he  came  also  Himself  with  full  consciousness  and  will. 
.  .  .  He  could  not  be  conceived,  as  we  are,  quite  passively, 


278  APPENDIX 

and  could  not  come  in  this  way  into  existence,  but,  because 
He  previously  existed,  His  conception  was  His  own  deed. 
He  assumed  consciously  and  freely  our  human  nature. 

Another  point  of  view  from  which  Prof.  Bavinck 
argues  the  necessity  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  the  relation 
of  Christ  to  the  world  as  Saviour. 

He  did  not  become  this  by  natural  development  of  His 
earthly  life  in  the  way  of  evolution.  He  came  as  a  Saviour, 
because  He  was  such  before  according  to  the  counsel  and 
will  of  His  Father.  Then  it  behoved  Him  to  be  like  unto 
His  brethren  in  all  things,  but  nevertheless  to  be  a  unique 
Person,  not  a  common  member  of  mankind,  but  the  Head 
of  a  new  Covenant,  the  root  of  a  new  generation. 

He  connects  this  with  the  terms  of  the  old  theology, 
that 

He  could  not  and  might  not  be  born  under  the  Covenant 
of  works,  subordinate  to  Adam,  and  subjected  to  the  guilt, 
sin,  and  death  of  the  race.  But,  like  Adam  himself,  He 
had  to  be  formed  directly  by  the  hand  of  God,  not  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground,  but  of  the  human  flesh  and  blood  in 
Mary's  holy  womb. 

Unlike  some  others,  Prof.  Bavinck  holds  that,  viewed 
in  the  light  of  the  divine  personality  and  redeeming  mis- 
sion of  Christ,  the  Virgin  Birth  is 

not  a  strange  fact  in  His  life,  not  a  superfluous  addition 
without  significance  for  His  own  Person  and  for  our  belief, 
but  a  natural  and  necessary  event  in  the  life  of  our  Lord, 
as  natural  and  necessary  as  His  death  and  resurrection.  It 
is  in  full  harmony  with  the  whole. 

Rejection  of  this  mystery  is  therefore  not  an  innocent 


APPENDIX  279 

thing.  One  cannot  defend  such  a  rejection  by  an  appeal 
to  the  silence  of  the  Apostles.  Though  we  believe  in  the 
supernatural  birth  of  Christ,  we  do  not  mention  it  every- 
day in  our  preaching.  The  central  facts  of  the  Gospel  are 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord,  not  His  supernatu- 
ral birth  and  incarnation.  The  Cross  of  Christ  has  there- 
fore been  the  herugma  of  the  Apostles,  and  ought  to  be 
ours  also.  But  though  we  do  not  mention  this  mystery  every 
day,  it  is  quite  another  thing  to  deny  and  reject  it.  That 
the  Christian  Church  has  never  done.  From  the  first,  when 
Mary  told  this  mystery  of  her  heart,  the  Church  believed 
her.  There  has  not  been  any  opposition  to  this  doctrine  but 
from  the  side  of  the  Ebionites  and  the  Gnostics — not  on 
critical  and  historical,  but  on  dogmatic  grounds.  And  just 
so  in  these  days,  the  rejection  of  the  Virgin  Birth  is  gener- 
ally combined  with  the  rejection  of  the  Apostolic  testimony 
about  the  resurrection  and  ascension,  the  Messiahship  and 
divine  Sonship  of  our  Lord. 


XI 


The  Rev.  Prof.  E.  Doumergtje,  D.D.,  Montauban, 
Fbance 

Prof.  Doumergue  describes  his  paper  as  "  simply  the 
reflections  of  an  historian,  who  is  accustomed  to  apply 
the  historical  methods." 

He  dismisses  the  a  'priori  objection  to  miracle,  and 
limits  himself  to  pointing  out  that  the  miracle  of  the 
Supernatural  Birth  is  really  "  less  miraculous  than,  for 


280  APPENDIX 

instance,  the  Kesurrection."  "  No  doubt,  we  can  find 
for  the  Resurrection  certain  analogies  in  nature;  but 
the  analogies  for  the  miraculous  Birth  are  of  a  different 
and  more  significant  character."  He  instances  the  facts 
of  Parthenogenesis, 

With  reference  to  "  legends,"  he  asks  whether  these 
do  not  rather  speak  to  "  a  human  need,  a  human  in- 
stinct," to  which  the  miraculous  birth  of  Christ  cor- 
responds. 

He  then  comes 

to  the  great  argument,  the  direct,  positive  argument  in 
favour  of  the  Supernatural  Birth.  It  is  the  corollary  of  the 
entire  Life  of  the  Christ,  and  of  the  part  (role)  which  the 
witnesses  of  that  Life,  the  Evangelists  and  the  Apostles, 
attributed  to  the  Christ. 

The  present  crisis,  which  is  so  troublesome,  so  harassing, 
is  the  result  of  the  contest  between  two  theologies :  one  leads 
quite  naturally  to  the  affirmation;  the  other  leads,  no  less 
naturally,  to  the  denial  of  the  Supernatural  Birth. 

It  is  on  that  fact,  and  because  of  that  fact,  that  the  two 
schools  separate ;  much  more  than  because  of  any  other  fact, 
even  the  Resurrection, 

And  why?  Because,  very  logically,  the  decisive  question 
is  always  the  question  of  origin  and  of  nature.  Whence 
does  the  Christ  come?  Whence  does  Christianity  come? 
What  is  the  nature  of  the  Christ,  and  of  Christianity? 
One  Theology  answers:  the  Christ  is  God  who  has  become 
a  man;  the  other  Theology  answers:  he  is  a  man  who  has 
become  God.     Heavenward!     Earthward! 

That  is  exactly,  precisely,  the  special  point — the  point, 
however,  on  which  everything  depends,  on  which  the  present 
theological  discussion  in  the  entire  world  turns. 


APPENDIX  281 

He  illustrates  the  character  of  the  new  humanity- 
theology  from  Wernle,  who  contends  that,  though  Jesus 
had  a  sort  of  moral  divinity,  "  in  spite  of  it  all,  he  did 
not  pass  beyond  the  limits  of  pure  humanity  "  ( des  rein 
menschlichen) . 

In  dealing  with  the  argument  from  silence,  he  has  an 
interesting  quotation  from  Biedermann: 

One  understands  how  as  rationalistic  a  theologian  as 
Biedermann,  who  does  not  admit  for  himself  the  miraculous 
birth,  writes :  "  John  does  not  explain  how  the  Logos  became 
flesh,  but  he  knows,  evidently,  the  Miraculous  Birth." 

He  points  out  that  "  in  order  to  originate,  to  form,  to 
develop,  a  legend  needs  time,"  and  the  time  in  this  case 
is  wanting.  The  style  of  the  reports  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  shows  that  "  these  reports  belong  to  the  most  an- 
cient documents  which  are  contained  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment." He  adopts  the  view  of  Zahn  that  Matthew's  nar- 
rative is  a  protest  against  the  slander  that  Jesus  was  the 
son  of  Mary  conceived  in  adultery. 

But  if  Matthew  protests  against  the  slanders,  to  what 
epoch  must  those  slanders  go  back,  which  were  older  than 
the  epoch  in  which  Matthew  wrote?  Again  we  are  face  to 
face  with  a  primitive  belief. 

We  can,  therefore,  at  the  least,  conclude  with  Bovon,  the 
dogmatist  of  Lausanne,  who  is  so  independent  of  traditional 
orthodoxy :  "  In  the  present  state  of  the  question,  it  would 
require  a  great  deal  of  assurance  to  declare  that  Jesus  was 
not  born  as  the  Biblical  authors  report." 


282  APPENDIX 

XII 
The  Rev.  H.  C.  G.  Moule,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Durham 

The  Bishop  of  Durham  furnishes  a  succinct  and  de- 
vout statement  of  the  reasons  for  believing  in  the  Virgin 
Birth  of  our  Lord,  which  it  is  to  be  hoped  will  be  pub- 
lished in  another  form.  He  builds  his  argument  largely 
on  the  character  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels,  regarding 
which  he  says :  "  More  and  yet  more,  as  life  advances, 
and  as  experience  tests  and  discriminates  opinions  and 
arguments,  the  supreme  and  self-evidential  value  of  the 
Evangelic  Portrait  of  our  Lord  affirms  itself  to  my  deep- 
est reason." 

It  is  perhaps  only  necessary  here  to  quote  a  striking 
passage  on  the  contrast  of  the  Canonical  with  the 
Apocryphal  Gospels,  and  his  closing  summary. 

I  call  attention  here,  as  we  may  do  everywhere  in  the 
Canonical  Gospels,  to  the  eloquent  contrast  between  the  re- 
straint and  sober  dignity  of  their  narratives,  which  yet  are 
so  full  of  wonders,  and  the  narratives  of  the  so-called  Apoc- 
ryphal Gospels  and  the  kindred  literature;  such  as  the 
Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  the  Anaphora  Pilati,  and  the  lately 
recovered  fragments  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter.  These  writings, 
broadly  speaking,  emanate  from  the  same  age  of  the  world 
and  from  the  same  race  and  region  as  the  Canonical  Gospels. 
But  compare  the  character  of  the  two  literatures,  in  their 
picture  of  the  supernatural.  The  canonical  writers  never, 
for  a  moment,  give  us  the  grotesque,  the  gigantesque,  in 


APPENDIX  283 

their  accounts.  The  apocryphal  writers  revel  in  such  things. 
The  flight  into  Egypt  appears  in  them  as  a  succession  of 
fantastic  miracles.  The  dying  thief  addresses  the  Lord  on 
the  cross  in  a  long  oration;  he  is  sent  with  a  written  order 
for  admission  to  the  guardians  of  Paradise;  he  appears  in 
regal  pomp  after  death  in  Galilee.  The  Lord's  resurrection 
in  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  is  described  as  the  exit  from  the 
sepulchre  of  a  Being  whose  head  is  higher  than  the  clouds 
in  the  sky,  and  the  cross  moving  automatically,  follows  him 
as  he  steps  forth.  I  know  few  methods  at  once  so  simple 
and  so  impressive  for  revising  a  consciousness  of  the  majes- 
tic sanity  and  veracity  of  the  Canonical  Gospels  as  to  peruse, 
in  close  succession,  a  few  pages  of  the  apocryphal  stories 
and  then,  let  us  say,  the  last  two  chapters  of  St.  John  or 
the  first  two  chapters  of  St.  Luke. 

Yes,  the  great  yet  tender  narrative  of  Annunciation  and 
Nativity  bears  in  its  very  tissue  all  the  deepest  characters 
of  truthfulness.  Some  of  its  finest  and  most  beautiful  lines 
suggest  powerfully  that  its  writer  drew  his  knowledge  from 
a  quarter  authentic  above  all  others,  from  the  Holy  Mother 
herself.  Nothing  is  more  easy  than  to  think  that  St.  Luke 
had  ample  opportunity  for  consulting  her.  .  .  . 

So  I  close  my  answer  to  the  question  at  the  head  of  my 
essay.  To  sum  it  up  in  an  inverted  order,  beginning  from  the 
end:  I  believe  the  spotless  Virgin  Birth  of  our  most  Holy 
Lord  because  I  have  a  strong  confidence  in  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  original  assertion  of  it  in  the  Gospels.  I  believe 
it  because  I  take  it  to  be  supremely  and  profoundly  con- 
gruous with  the  altogether  unique  Person  and  Character  of 
Him  of  whom  it  is  asserted.  I  believe  it  in  harmony  (a 
harmony  which  is  a  powerful  aid  to  a  reasonable  faith)  with 
a  continuous  belief,  unbroken  throughout  the  whole  Chris- 
tian era  from  the  apostolic  age  to  ours,  and  which  has  found 
a  continual  verification,  from  the  spiritual  view-point,  in 
the  adoring  faith  of  the  saints  of  God. 


284  APPENDIX 

XIII 
The  Kev.  W.  H.  Griffith-Thomas,  D.D.,  Oxford 

Dr.  Griffith-Thomas  entitles  his  paper,  "  The  Virgin 
Birth — Reasons  for  Belief,"  and  aims  at  stating  "  in 
brief  and  popular  language  the  general  position." 
"  Without  concentrating  on  any  particular  arguments 
in  favour  of  the  doctrine  it  is  proposed  to  give  several 
reasons  which  singly  and  cumulatively  support  a  belief 
in  the  Virgin  Birth."  It  is  another  paper  to  which  gen- 
eral currency  should  be  given. 

The  author  follows  lines  analogous  to  those  in  the 
foregoing  lectures  in  discussing  the  genuineness  and  in- 
tegrity of  the  Gospel  records,  the  early  witness  of  the 
Church,  and  the  necessity  of  the  miraculous  birth  to 
account  for  the  uniqueness  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  "  It 
may  fairly  be  contended  that  such  an  unique  life  de- 
mands an  unique  origin  and  entrance  into  the  world." 

"  The  one  rock,"  he  argues,  "  on  which  all  non- 
miraculous  theories  are  shattered  is  the  historic  Person 
of  the  man  Christ  Jesus.  He  has  to  be  accounted  for. 
The  effect  demands  an  adequate  cause,  and  we  Chris- 
tians claim  that  the  Virgin  Birth  alone  gives  this  ade- 
quate explanation  of  His  mode  of  entrance  upon  His 
earthly  life." 


APPENDIX  285 

On  the  silence  of  the  Apostles,  Dr.  Griffith-Thomas 
remarks : 

The  preaching  of  the  fact  of  the  Incarnation  rather  than 
the  mode  is  the  true  method  of  presenting  the  Gospel;  first 
what  Christ  is  and  only  then  how  He  came  to  be  what  He 
is.  In  these  considerations  of  the  true  perspective  of  Chris- 
tian teaching  we  may  rightly  explain  the  silence  of  St.  Paul 
and  St.  John.  There  was  no  need  of  the  Virgin  Birth  for 
evangelistic  purposes,  but  only  for  the  intellectual  instruc- 
tion of  Christian  people.  Adequate  reasons  could  be  given 
for  silence  on  this  point  in  the  earliest  years  of  the  Church, 
but  to  argue  from  this  silence  to  a  disbelief,  or  at  any  rate 
to  an  ignorance  of  the  doctrine  on  the  part  of  the  early 
Christians,  is  not  only  precarious  in  the  highest  degree,  but 
really  contradicts  the  facts  associated  with  the  early  date 
of  Luke's  Gospel. 

He  concludes: 

We  see  no  reason  for  rejecting  the  testimony  of  the  Gos- 
pels and  the  witness  of  the  whole  Church  to  the  Virgin 
Birth.  If  the  narratives  of  the  Gospels  are  not  true  they 
are  a  deliberate  fiction,  for  there  is  no  other  alternative.  And 
if  the  Church  has  been  mistaken  for  centuries  it  is  certainly 
the  greatest  and  most  widespread  persistent  delusion  that 
has  ever  been  known.  Two  almost  insuperable  difficulties 
appear  in  this  connection.  (1)  How  did  the  idea  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  arise  so  soon  if  it  was  not  based  on  fact? 
(2)  How  were  the  narratives  of  the  Gospels  accepted  so  early 
and  universally  if  they  were  not  historical?  .  .  . 

The  ultimate  decision  will  only  be  arrived  at  by  settling 
the  question  what  Jesus  came  in  the  world  to  do.  If  the 
one  thing  that  man  needs  is  illumination,  then  ideas  will 
suffice  and  no  Divine  Incarnation  is  necessary,  but  if  there 
is  such  a  thing  as  sin  in  the  world  we  must  produce  a  Divine 


286  APPENDIX 

Sinless  Redeemer  to  deal  with  it.  For  such  a  Redeemer  the 
only  adequate  explanation,  so  far  as  His  earthly  origin  is 
concerned,  is  the  ancient  belief  of  the  Church  Universal  that 
He  was  "conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary." 


XIV 

The  Kev.  Peof.  Henby  Cowan,  D.D.,  Abeedeen, 
Scotland 

Prof.  Cowan  writes  on  the  "  Testimony  of  the  Sub- 
Apostolic  Age  to  the  Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord,"  and 
his  paper  is  a  carefully  marshalled  statement  of  the  evi- 
dence on  that  subject.  The  testimonies  of  Ignatius, 
Aristides,  and  Justin  are  presented.  The  Pastor  of 
Hermas  is  one  of  the  books  sometimes  alleged  to  be  silent 
on  the  Virgin  Birth,  but  Prof.  Cowan  points  to  a  pas- 
sage "  in  which  the  Virgin  Birth  appears  to  be  alle- 
gorically  declared."  He  shows  how  the  Apocryphal 
Protevangelium  of  James  and  the  pseudonymous  Gospel 
of  Peter  attest  (the  former  directly,  the  latter  by  sug- 
gestion) the  Virgin  Birth.  The  fact  is  made  use  of 
that  "  several  heretical  sects  which  nourished  in  the  Sub- 
Apostolic  Age  either  accepted  the  Virgin  Birth  or 
adopted  a  Christology  suggested  by  it,  and  thus  recog- 
nised the  authority  of  the  tradition  regarding  it."  Later 
testimonies — Christian,  heretical,  Jewish — follow. 


APPENDIX  287 

As  respects  results : 

The  general  belief  of  the  Church  in  the  closing  years  of 
the  Apostolic  Age  has  a  bearing  on  the  genuineness  and  his- 
toricity of  Matthew  i.,  ii.,  and  of  Luke  i.,  ii. ;  on  their  genu- 
ineness because  such  belief  removes  any  a  priori  reason  for 
supposing  that  the  narratives  of  the  Infancy  had  no  place 
in  the  Gospels  as  originally  composed;  on  their  historicity 
because  if  the  records  of  those  four  chapters  were  in  any 
important  particulars  untrue,  the  errors  must  have  been 
repudiated  by  many  instead  of  being  generally  accepted  by 
the  Church. 

He  thus  comments  on  the  alleged  silence  of  St.  John : 

Whatever  weight,  rightly  or  wrongly,  may  be  attached  to 
this  silence  is  outweighed  by  that  belief  in  the  Virgin  Birth 
which  sub-apostolic  testimony  shows  to  have  been  general 
during  the  closing  years  of  St.  John's  life.  For  surely  if 
such  belief  was  really  unfounded,  St.  John  must  have  known 
it  to  be  so,  owing  to  his  special  intimacy  with  Mary,  who 
was  consigned  to  his  care  and  lived  in  his  home.  The  propa- 
gation, moreover,  of  the  alleged  error  took  place  before  his 
very  eyes;  for  he  lived  in  his  old  age  at  Ephesus,  the  cap- 
ital of  that  province  of  Asia  where  the  Virgin  Birth  is  spe- 
cially known  to  have  been  acknowledged. 

If  John,  then,  knew  that  the  belief  which  had  become  so 
widespread  among  the  Christians  around  him  was  erroneous, 
can  we  conceive  of  him,  as  an  honest  man,  sanctioning  by 
silence  the  growth  of  what  he  knew  to  be  a  fable  into  a 
prominent  part  of  the  Christian  Creed?  Silence  in  such  a 
case  would  have  been  unpardonable;  while  on  the  other 
hand,  any  protest  which  he  made  could  not  but  have  been 
memorable  and  effective.  The  absence  of  protest  on  his  part 
is  explicable  only  on  the  supposition  that  the  Church's  belief 
in  her  Lord's  Virgin  Birth  was  well  founded. 


288  APPENDIX 

XV 

Mr.  Joseph  Jacobs,  Litt.D.,  Yonkers,  ST.  Y. 

Mr.  Jacobs  writes  as  a  Jew  on  "  The  Virgin  Birth 
from  the  Standpoint  of  Jewish  Science  and  of  Folk- 
lore." 

His  blunt  position  is :  "  There  is  no  Jewish  stand- 
point with  regard  to  the  Virgin  Birth." 

Throughout  the  wide  extent  of  Jewish  literature  there  is 
not  a  single  passage  which  can  bear  the  construction  that 
the  Messiah  should  be  miraculously  conceived.  The  passage 
(Is.  vii.  14-16)  is  now  universally  recognised  by  Christian 
scholars  to  be  entirely  mistranslated  by  the  Septuagint  and 
by  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew.  The  only  basis  for  any  such 
construction  being  put  upon  the  passage  is  a  mistranslation 
of  the  Septuagint  of  a  word  which  in  Hebrew  has  no  refer- 
ence to  virginity.  The  word,  ialmah  used  in  that  passage 
is  derived  from  a  root  meaning  to  be  mature,  and  simply 
implies  that  the  young  woman  in  question  is  of  a  marriage- 
able age.  The  fact  that  it  is  used  in  Proverbs  xxx.  19,  of 
"  the  way  of  a  man  with  a  maid,"  is  sufficient  to  prove  that 
there  is  no  idea  of  virginity  attached  to  the  word.  This  is 
now  recognised  by  all  scholars,  Christian  as  well  as  Jewish. 
The  fathers  of  the  Church  took  the  opposite  view  for  obvious 
reasons,  and  their  theories  prevailed  to  the  end  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  when,  to  use  the  words  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Skin- 
ner in  the  Cambridge  Bible  for  schools,  "  it  began  to  be 
recognised  that  on  the  philological  question  the  Jews  were 
right."  .  .  . 

The  Jewish  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  never  saw  in 


APPENDIX  289 

this  passage  anything  corresponding  to  a  Virgin  Birth* 
This  is  sufficiently  indicated  by  the  absence  of  any  sug- 
gestion  in  the  very  wide  apocryphal  and  apocalyptic  litera- 
ture of  the  Jews  which  can  be  dated  before  the  birth  of 
Christ.  These  visions  and  prophecies  are  filled  with  innu- 
merable traits  of  a  supernatural  kind,  but  they  never  sug- 
gest that  the  Messiah  shall  be  born  otherwise  than  as  a 
man.  The  traits  of  the  Jewish  Messiah  in  these  works  have 
been  brought  together  in  an  excellent  work  by  Prof.  James 
Drummond,  The  Jewish  Messiah,  a  Critical  History  of  the 
Messianic  Idea  among  the  Jews,  from  the  Rise  of  the  Mac- 
cabees  to  the  Closing  of  the  Talmud.  There  is  not  a  scin- 
tilla of  evidence  in  all  this  literature  of  anything  corre- 
sponding to  the  Virgin  Birth.  Indeed,  in  the  celebrated 
dialogue  between  Justin  Martyr  and  the  Jew  Trypho,  who 
has  been  identified  by  some  with  the  Rabbi  Tarphon  of  the 
Talmud,  the  latter  distinctly  remarks  of  the  Jews  of  his 
time :  "  We  all  expect  that  the  Christ  will  come  into  being 
as  a  man  for  men"  (Dialogue,  XI,  9). 

During  the  Middle  Ages  several  renegade  Jews  tried  to 
convince  their  former  co-religionists  of  the  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity from  the  traditional  Scriptures  and  holy  books  re- 
vered by  the  Jews.  The  whole  of  the  two  Talmuds  of  Jeru- 
salem and  Babylon  and  the  Midrashic  literature  connected 
with  them  were  ransacked  to  prove  the  Trinity,  the  Virgin 
Birth,  etc.,  but  not  a  single  passage  could  be  discovered 
which  directly,  or  by  implication,  implied  that  it  was  the 
Jewish  belief  that  the  Messiah  would  be  born  in  any  super- 
natural manner.  Mr.  F.  P.  Badham,  in  The  Academy  of 
London  (June  8,  1895,  pp.  485-7)  has  brought  together  eight 
passages  from  the  mediaeval  controversialists  which  might 
seem  to  have  some  bearing  on  the  subject.  The  majority 
of  them  no  longer  exist  in  the  MS 8.  of  Rabbinic  literature, 
and  are  quoted  by  apostates  whose  bona  fides  leaves  one  in 
doubt.    Most  of  the  passages  come  from  Raymond  Martini's 


290  APPENDIX 

Pugio  Fide,  who  had  access  to  books  no  longer  extant,  but, 
even  granting  the  authenticity  of  these  passages,  they  are 
much  too  vague  to  bear  the  interpretation  placed  upon  them 
by  the  Dominican  monk.1 

The  latter  part  of  the  paper  is  taken  up  with  exam- 
ples borrowed  from  Hartland,  Charency,  etc.,  to  show 
that  virgin  birth  is  a  common  feature  in  the  folk-lore  of 
nations.  "  In  Greek  mythology  it  was  quite  usual  to 
consider  the  birth  of  many  deities  and  demigods  as  oc- 
curring without  the  intervention  of  a  father."  He  in- 
stances Semele,  Cybele,  Adonis,  Hephaestus,  etc.  Mis- 
cellaneous legends  are  cited  from  Persia,  Tartary, 
Korea,  Japan,  China,  Peru,  etc.  He  says,  "  Perhaps 
the  most  remarkable  analogy  of  the  virgin  birth  of 
Jesus  is  that  of  the  virgin  birth  of  Plato  as  reported  by 
Diogenes  Laertius  in  his  life  of  Plato."  "  Thus,"  he 
says,  "  from  all  portions  of  the  globe  evidence  accumu- 
lates— and  I  have  given  only  a  selection  of  the  most 
striking  cases — that  it  is  the  natural  instinct  of  the  folk 
to  claim  for  their  heroes  and  demigods  a  supernatural 
birth,  in  most  cases  through  Parthenogenesis."  One  re- 
mark more :  "  To  an  outsider,  indeed,  it  appears  that 
all  these  attempts  to  prove  the  supernatural  character  of 
Jesus'  birth  and  family  are  logical  consequences  of  the 
attempts  to  give  Him  a  divine  character." 

[Dr.  Jacobs  has  been  misled  by  his  authorities.    The 
cases  he  cites  from  Greek  mythology  (Perseus,  Adonis, 
1  See  above,  pp.  168#. 


APPENDIX  291 

Cybele,  etc. )  were  not,  even  in  the  legend,  cases  of  vir- 
gin birth  (cf.  Smith's  or  other  Classical  Dictionary), 
and  in  no  case  did  they  relate  to  historical  personages. 
It  is  not  alleged  in  the  worthless  fable  of  Diogenes  Laer- 
tius  that  Plato  was  born  of  a  virgin  (cf.  Gore,  Dissert. 
p.  291).  The  unsifted  stories  from  other  peoples  are  use- 
less for  comparison  with  an  historical  account,  and  in 
any  case  bear  no  analogy  to  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus. 
Even  if  fables  be  found  of  a  boy  growing  out  of  an  egg 
(Korea),  or  of  the  Japanese  god  of  fishes  being  born 
from  the  hand  of  the  first  woman,  or  of  a  woman  con- 
ceiving from  eating  a  red  fruit  which  she  found,  and 
giving  birth  to  the  ancestors  of  the  Chinese  Emperor, 
what  has  this  to  do  with  the  stories  in  the  Gospels  ?] 


XVI 

Prof.  Ismar  J.  Peritz,  Ph.D.,  Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

Dr.  Peritz  writes  as  a  Jewish  convert  on  "  The 
Hebrew-Christian  Attitude  Towards  the  Virgin  Birth." 
He  divides  Jewish  converts  to  Christianity  into  three 
classes,  according  as  their  training  and  habit  of  thought 
have  been:  1.  Talmudic;  2.  Historical;  and  3.  Crit- 
ical. He  finds  in  the  Talmud,  Targums,  and  later  Jew- 
ish literature,  certain  ideas  which  prepare  the  way  for 


292  APPENDIX 

the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  Virgin  Birth 
of  Christ — especially  the  ideas  of  the  pre-existence  of  the 
Messiah,  of  the  Memra-Logos,  and  of  the  Metraton  (an 
angelic  representative  of  the  Divinity).  He  indicates 
certain  parallels  to  the  Virgin  Birth  in  a  Midrash  of 
Rabbi  Moses  Hadarshan,  a  French  exegete  of  the  elev- 
enth century,  who  "  had  evidently  imbibed  Christian 
conceptions."  On  the  historical  side,  he  dwells  on  the 
services  rendered  by  Hebrew-Christians  in  modern  times 
to  the  defence  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  instancing  specially 
Meander  and  Edersheim.  In  the  critical  field,  he  gives 
an  account  of  the  labours  of  Dr.  G.  Dalman,  who,  though 
he  "  does  not  specifically  discuss  the  Virgin  Birth,  deals 
with  it  in  part  in  connection  with  his  treatment  of  the 
title  '  Son  of  God.'  "  He  claims  that  the  representative 
Hebrew-Christian  attitude  is  in  harmony  with  that  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  is  on  the  side  of  the  unique 
birth,  life,  character,  and  mission  of  Jesus  the  Messiah. 


XVII 

Pasteur  Hirsch,  Paris 

This  writer  discusses  historically  "  The  Evolution 
that  has  led  from  the  Miraculous  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ 
to  the  Dogma  of  the  Immaculate  Conception." 


APPENDIX  293 


XVIII 


The  Rev.   Prof.   Gabriel  Oussani,   D.D., 
Dunwoodie,  "N.  Y. 

Prof.  Oussani  writes  from  the  Roman  Catholic  point 
of  view,  and  likewise  traces  "  The  Various  Develop- 
ments of  the  Doctrine  of  Christ's  Virgin  Birth  in  the 
Catholic  Church."  On  the  Virgin  Birth  itself  he  makes 
a  strong  point  of  the  patristic  testimony,  and  of  the 
inseparable  connection  between  this  doctrine  and  the 
dogma  of  the  divinity  of  Christ.  His  argument  is  thus 
put: 

Granted  that  the  Eternal  Son  of  God  did  at  a  certain 
moment  of  time  take  flesh  by  a  real  incarnation  in  the 
womb  of  Mary;  granted  that  He  was  born  as  man,  with- 
out change  of  personality  or  addition  of  another  person- 
ality, but  simply  by  the  assumption  of  new  nature  and 
by  an  entrance  into  new  conditions  of  life  and  experience; 
granted  in  this  sense  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God 
in  the  womb  of  Mary — can  we  conceive  it  to  have  taken 
place  by  the  ordinary  process  of  generation?  Do  not  we 
inevitably  associate  with  the  ordinary  process  of  generation 
the  production  of  a  new  personality?  Must  not  the  denial 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  involve  the  position  that  Jesus  was 
simply  a  new  human  person  in  whatever  specially  intimate 
relations  with  God?  And  this  argument  becomes  almost 
irresistible  when  the  question  is  removed  from  the  idea  of 
incarnation  strictly  considered,  to  the  associated  idea  of 
the  sinless   humanity,   the  humanity   of  a  second   Adam. 


294  APPENDIX 

Christ  was  a  new  departure  in  human  life,  a  marvellous 
phenomenon,  which  becomes  still  more  marvellous,  more  im- 
penetrable and  altogether  unintelligible  were  we  to  ascribe 
to  Him  the  same  process  of  generation  as  to  other  mortals. 

With  reference  to  the  later  developments  he  is  careful 
to  put  them  on  a  different  basis  from  the  doctrine  of  the 
Virgin  Birth.  Thus,  the  dogma  of  Mary's  perpetual 
virginity  has 

a  powerful  support  in  early  Christian  tradition,  theology, 
and  worship.  It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  viewed 
as  an  historical  fact  it  has  no  explicit  support  in  Scripture. 
The  dogma  must  therefore  be  considered  as  the  result  of  a 
development,  which  development,  strictly  speaking,  does  not 
necessarily  imply  its  theological  or  historical  truth  or  false- 
hood. 

As  regards  Joseph's  perpetual  virginity,  it 

has  no  ground  whatever  either  in  Scripture  or  in  early 
Christian  tradition  and  literature.  The  Gospel's  statements, 
were  they  to  be  rationally  interpreted,  are  explicitly  against 
it,  although,  as  a  specimen  of  dogmatic  or  rather  theological 
process  of  evolution,  it  falls  quite  naturally  within  the  sphere 
of  progressive  development,  so  apparent  and  visible  in  both 
Catholic  and  Protestant  theology  alike. 

And  generally: 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  if  a  process  of  development  can 
be  shown  to  have  taken  place  in  the  second  and  especially 
the  third  stage  of  the  doctrine  concerning  the  parentage  and 
birth  of  Christ,  no  such  process  can  be  shown  to  have  taken 
place  in  the  first  stage  of  the  doctrine,  as  it  is  perfectly 
demonstrable  that  the  doctrine,  in  its  first  stage,  relating  to 


APPENDIX  295 

the  divine  conception  of  Christ  and  His  Virgin  Birth,  was 
the  primitive  belief  of  the  apostles,  evangelists  and  disciples 
of  our  Lord,  and  at  a  time  when  theological  development 
could  not  yet  have  taken  place  in  the  Church.  Hence,  if 
the  doctrine  of  the  perpetual  virginity  of  Mary  and  of  Jo- 
seph can  be  attacked  on  Scriptural  and  critical  grounds,  that 
of  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  stands  as  solid  as  a  rock. 

The  remaining  part  of  the  paper  discusses  the  theories 
of  the  origin  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Virgin  Birth  from 
Jewish  and  pagan  sources. 


INDEX 

["Ap."  refers  to  the  Appendix.] 


Addis,  W.  E.,  22;  Ap.  253  ff. 
Adeney,  W.  F.,  21,  80. 
Apocryphal  Gospels,  65,  85,  88- 

90;  Ap.  282-3,  286. 
Apostles,  silence  of,  7, 11,  111  ff., 

114  ff.,   178,    189  ff.,  211  ff. 

(See  John,  Paul,  etc.);  Ap. 

285,  287. 
Apostles'  Creed,  141  ff. 
Aristides,  144;  Ap.  259. 

Badham,  F.  P.,  125;  Ap.  250, 
288-9. 

Bartlet,J.V.,21,60, 102. 

Bavinck,  H.,  Ap.  274  ff. 

Bethlehem,  birth  of  Jesus  at,  32, 
34,  113,  129,  130-1,  174. 

Beyschlag,  W.,  18,  19,  32,  58,  76, 
124,  203. 

Biedermann,  Ap.  281. 

Birth  of  Jesus,  date  of,  32,  68, 
70;  place  of,  32,  34-5,  50-1, 
99,  101,  113,  128-9,  130-1, 
174.  (See  Bethlehem,  Naza- 
reth, Virgin  Birth.) 

Blass,  F.,  59,  62. 

Bo  von,  J.,  Ap.  281. 

Box,  G.  H.,  Ap.  248  ff. 

Briggs,  C.  A.,  22,  80  ff.;  Ap.  251. 

Bruce,  A.  B.,  184,  191-2. 

Burkitt,  F.  C,  51-2,  72,  102. 


Campbell,  R.  J.,  2,  8,  222. 

Celsus,  42-3,  74, 146,  149,  169. 

Cerinthus,  110,  140. 

Cheyne,  T.  K,  53,  125-6,  157, 
176  ff.,  179. 

Christ,  Jesus,  His  knowledge  of 
origin,  96;  sinlessness,  111- 
12,  116,  188,  190  ff.,  193-4, 
195  ff.,  208,  229;  the  second 
Adam,  116,  201  ff.;  incar- 
nate Son,  117  ff.,  187,  288  ff., 
229;  miracle  implied  in 
origin  of,  111,  116  ff.,  189, 
208  ff.,  217  ff.,  229.  (See  In- 
carnation, Sinlessness,  Vir- 
gin Birth,  etc.);  Ap.,  Sin- 
lessness, 254  ff.,  262  ff.,  275; 
necessity  of  miracle,  255, 
261,  265,  275,  278. 

Conybeare,  F.  C,  19,  53,  72,  163, 
167,  186. 

Cowan,  H.,  Ap.  286  ff. 

Dalman,  G.,  74,  103;  Ap.  250, 

292. 
Davidic  descent,  of  Jesus,   73, 

103-4,  113,  115-16,  120;  of 

Mary,  75, 104-5. 
Denney,  J.,  21. 
Discrepancies,  in  narratives,  32, 

34  ff.,  36. 


297 


298 


INDEX 


Dorner,  I.  A.,  20,  225. 
Doumergue,  E.,  Ap.  279  ff. 

Early  Church,  witness  of,  7, 
138  ff.,  141  ff.,  147  ff.,  228; 
Ap.  286-7. 

Ebionites,  Jewish,  11,  35,  138- 
40,  228;  Gospel  of,  44-5, 
139,  161,  186. 

Edersheim,  A.,  105,  125,  130; 
Ap.  292. 

Essential  character  of  Virgin 
Birth,  3,  4,  7,  10,  16  ff., 
23  ff.,  27,  182  ff.,  186-7, 
229;  Ap.  234,  243-4,  253, 
260,  268,  270,  274-5,  278-9. 

Fairbairn,  A.  M.,  20. 
Foster,  G.  B.,  19,  43, 192. 

Garvie,  A.  E.,  21 ;  Ap.  260  ff. 
Genealogies,  in    Gospels,  72  ff., 

101  ff. 
Gnostics,  and  Virgin  Birth,  11, 

138,  140  ff.,  147,  228. 
Godet,  F.,  20,  58,  60,  62,  65-6, 

72,  74,  76,  103,  105,  156. 
Gore,  C,  20,  102,  110,  163,  166, 

170, 172,  183. 
Gospels,    origin    and    dates    of, 

58  ff .     (See  Matthew,  Mark, 

etc.);  of  Hebrews,  43-4,  62; 

of  Ebionites,  44-5,  139,  161, 

186;  of  Marcion,  46-7,  64, 

140;  Apocryphal,  65,  85,  88- 

90;  Ap. 
Griffith-Thomas,    W.    H.;    Ap. 

284  ff. 


Gunkel,  H.,  19,  53,  69,  113,  125, 
142,  154,  163,  168,  173;  Ap. 
252. 

Haeckel,  E.,  5, 146. 

Haring,  Th.,  22,  197. 

Harnack,  A.,  6,  17,  19,  52,  54  ff., 

78,  124,  138,  141-2,  153-4, 

176;    Ap.    239-42,    244-5, 

257,  259. 
Heathen      Analogies,      alleged, 

futility  of,   201,   207,   216, 

229.      (See  Virgin  Births.) 

Ap.  290-1. 
Hebrews,  Gospel  of,  43-4,  62. 
Hengstenberg,  E.  W.,  128,  133. 
Bering,  A.,  138-9, 141. 
Hippolytus,  139,  140,  147-8. 
Hirsch,  Pasteur,  Ap.  292. 
Historical  Character    of  Virgin 

Birth,  27,  64, 166-7. 
Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  60,  168. 
Holtzmann,  O.,  19,  31. 
Huxley,  T.,  221. 

Ignatius,  89,  143-4;  Ap. 

Immanuel,  prophecy  of,  8,  82, 
124  ff.,  131  ff.,  153-5,  202, 
216,  228;  Ap.  249-53,  288  ff. 

Incarnation,  presupposition  of, 
14  ff.,  213;  connection  with 
belief  in  Virgin  Birth,  11, 15, 
18, 19  ff.,  139, 182  ff.,  187  ff., 
190  ff.,  228-9;  miracle  im- 
plied in,  116-17, 190,  208  ff., 
217  ff.,  229;  incarnations  in 
heathenism,  164-5,  216-17. 
(See  Christ) ;  Ap.  256, 276  ff ., 
285-6. 


INDEX 


299 


Irenseus,  110,  133,  139,  140, 142- 
3,  147-8;  Ap.  258-9. 

Jacobs,  J.,  228  ff. 

Jerome,  44-5,  140. 

Jewish  Fables  on  Christ's  Birth, 
5,  95,  146-7. 

John,  on  need  of  regeneration, 
111,  193  ff.;  on  Incarnation, 
108  ff.,  201,  214-15;  alleged 
silence  of,  108;  relations 
with  Cerinthus,  110,  140; 
Gospel  of,  7,  88,  108  ff.;  ch. 
i.,  13,lll;Ap.270ff.;ch.i., 
13,  264-5,  271-3. 

Joseph,  in  Genealogies,  73 ff.;  a 
source  of  information,  83  ff., 
92,  94  ff. ;  alleged  paternity 
of,  5,  31,  99  ff. 

Justin  Martyr,  42,  46,  133,  134, 
145-6,  166. 

Kaftan,  J.,  22, 197. 

Kahler,  M.,  21. 

Kenyon,  F.  G.,  102. 

Keim,  Th.,  19,  46,  50,  58,  61, 

124,  155-6,  162,  192,  203-6. 
Knowling,  R.  J.,  21,  69, 105;  Ap. 

258  ff. 

Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  20, 118. 
Lobstein,  P.,  6, 19, 101, 124, 149, 

153,    154-5,    158   ff.,    186, 

210  ff. 
Loofs,  F.,  5,  22,  146,  197. 
Luke,  Gospel    of,  date,    59 ff.; 

genuineness,  58;  chs.  i.,  ii., 

evidence  of  mss.,  39  ff.;  of 


versions,  42  ff.;  integrity, 
53  ff.;  i.  34,  35,  53  ff.;  style, 
51-2;  Aramaic  source  of, 
78  ff.;  primitive  character 
of,  79  ff.,  87, 157;  Dr.  Briggs 
on,  80-1;  historical  ac- 
curacy, 69;  genealogy,  73  ff., 
101  ff.,  225;  Ap.,  chs.  i.,  ii., 
239  ff.,  243  ff.,  250  ff.,  258, 
283,  286;  primitive  charac- 
ter, 240-1,  245,  250-2. 

Machen,  J.  G.,  33,  52,  53,  163, 
168,  186. 

Marcion,  Gospel  of,  46-7,  64, 
140. 

Mark,  silence  of,  7,  11,  106 ff.; 
Gospel  of,  58  ff.,  61,  88, 
106  ff. 

Mary,  in  Luke's  Gospel,  37,  53, 
75,  77,  83  ff.,  93;  in  John, 
109, 112;  Davidic  descent  of, 
75,  104;  relation  to  birth- 
narratives,  83,  86,  96  ff., 
112;  Ap.  242,  244  ff.;  266, 
292  ff. 

MSS.  evidence  for  Gospels, 
39  ff. 

Matthew,  Gospel  of,  origin  and 
date,  58 ff.;  prophecy  in, 
127  ff.;  chs.  i.,  ii.,  genuine- 
ness of  (mss.  and  versions), 
39  ff.;  relation  to  Gospel  of 
Hebrews,  etc.,  43 ff.;  ob- 
jections to,  49 ff.;  style, 
51-2;  Matt,  i.,  16,  102 ff.; 
Ap.,  chs.  i.,  ii.,  248  ff. 

Meyer,  H.  A.  W.,  18,  58,  105, 
107, 128. 


300 


INDEX 


Miracle,  modern  denial  of,  6,  7, 
12  ff.,  15,  19-20,  87;  implied 
in  sinlessness,  111,  116, 197; 
in  uniqueness  of  Christ,  204; 
in  Incarnation,  208  ff.;  of 
Virgin  Birth,  14,  87,  217  ff., 
221,  223  ff.,  226,  229;  Ap. 
254-5. 

Mythical  theories  of  Virgin  Birth, 
their  contradictory  charac- 
ter, 8,  11,  12,  152,  154,  163, 
181-2;  alleged  Jewish  origin, 
82,  125-6,  152  ff.,  151  ff.; 
Gentile  origin,  82,  152  ff., 
163  ff.;  Babylonian  theories, 
153  ff.,  176  ff.  (See  virgin 
births);  Ap.  251-2;  290 ff. 

Narratives  of  Birth,  twofold,  30; 
independent,  33  ff . ;  agree- 
ments, 36;  complementary, 
36-8,  83-5;  sources  of,  83  ff. 
86,  96  ff. ;  doctrinal  implica- 
tions, 184-5,  212-3. 

Nazarenes,  43-4,  139-40;  their 
Gospel,  43-4,  62. 

Nazareth,  32,  34,  37,  50,  94-5, 
99  ff.,  101  ff.,  128, 174. 

Origen,  43,  44,  74,  133,  146, 149, 

166,  169-70. 
Oussani,  G.,  Ap.  293. 

Papias,  59,  62. 

Parthenogenesis,  221-2. 

Paul,  alleged  silence  of,  7, 114  ff., 
and  Luke,  115,  120;  pecu- 
liarity in  expressions  on 
Christ's  origin,  1 1 7  ff . ;  Chris- 
tology,  114,  116,  186-7. 


Peritz,  I.  J.,  Ap.  291-2. 
Pfleiderer,  O.,  19,  31, 119, 162. 
Pre-existence  of  Christ,  108,  111, 

117  ff.,    185,     196,    208  ff., 

215  ff. 
Prophecy,  in  Matthew,  127  ff.; 

of  Immanuel,  8,  82,  124  ff., 

131  ff.,  153  ff.,  202,  216;  Ap. 

249  ff.,  253,  288. 

Quirinius,  census  of,  68  ff. 

Ramsay,  W.  M.,  20,  69  ff.,  75; 

Ap.  243  ff. 
Renan,  E.,  5,  31. 
Reuss,  E.,  162. 
Rev.  xii.,  121-2, 180. 
Ritschl,  A.,  204,  206-7. 
Robinson,  H.  W.,  Ap.  267  ff. 
Romanes,  G.  J.,  222. 

Sanday,  W.,  20,  47,  75,  78,  79; 

Ap.  239  ff.,  246. 
Schaff,  P.,  5,  22. 
Schleiermacher,  F.  E.  D.,  203-4, 

205. 
Schmiedel,  P.  W.,  19,  53,  69, 113, 

125,  142,154,163,  168,  173; 

Ap.  251. 
Schmidt,  N.,  19,  192. 
Scholarship,  on  Virgin  Birth,  6, 

19  ff. 
Schiirer,  E.,  69-70. 
Seeberg,  R.,  21 ;  Ap.  273  ff. 
Silence  (alleged)  of  N.  T.,  7,  11, 

91  ff.,  178.  (See  Mark,  John, 

Paul.) 
Sinlessness    of    Christ,    111-12, 

116,     188,     190  ff.,     193-4, 


INDEX 


301 


195  ff.  208,  229;  miracle  im- 
plied in,  111,  116,  197,  229; 
Ap.  254  ff.,  262  ff.,  275. 

Soltau,  P.,  2,  19,  99,  113,  125, 
162,  170-1,  173  ff.,  186;  Ap. 
251. 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  5,  123-4. 

Sweet,  L.  M.,  28,  128,  160,  172, 
174. 

Swete,  H.  B.,  20,  78,  107,  128, 
147. 

Tatian,  42. 

Tennant,  F.  R.,  Ap.  261  ff. 

Tertullian,  47,  133,  137,  139, 
142-3,  147-8, 166,  169. 

"  Two-Source  "  Theory  of  Gos- 
pels, 59,  61  ff. 

Usener,  H.,  19,  53,  55-6,  113, 
125,  154,  162-3,  168,  173-4, 
176;  Ap.  252. 

Versions,  evidence  for  Gospels, 
42  ff. 


Virgin  Birth,  of  Christ,  assault 
on,  4  ff . ;  case  against,  7  ff. ; 
argument  for,  10  ff.,  227  ff.; 
essential  character  of,  3,  4, 
7, 10, 16  ff.,  23  ff.,  27, 182  ff., 
186-7,  229;  reasonableness 
of,  218  ff.,  223  ff.,  229. 

Virgin  births  (alleged),  in  heath- 
enism, Greek  and  Roman, 
168  ff. ;  Plato,  Alexander, 
Augustus,  170  ff.,  174  ff.; 
Buddhism,  152,  165,  171  ff.; 
Egyptian,  172-3;  Babylon- 
ian, 153  ff.,  176  ff. 

Voltaire,  5,  146. 

Weiss,  B.,  21,  62, 105;  Ap.  260. 
Weiss,  J.,  52,  53;  Ap.  241. 
Wellhausen,  J.,  32,  48,  50,  53. 
Wernle,  P.,  53;  Ap.  281. 
Witness  of  Gospels,  30  ff.,  150. 

Zahn,  Th.,  21,  61-3,  68,  95,  112. 
Zumpt,  A.  W.,  70. 


^w    rtAT.TT?OT 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
Thts  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


*B    7    19481      D£C  2  0  1999 
2Dec48P 

25Jan4  9C0 
LIBRARY  USE 

15Nov58MF| 

RECD  Lr 
NOV    a«6fi 


LD21-100m-9,'47(A5702 


sl6)476 


/, 


>ro 


'yw 


YB  28267 


235420 

773/7 


